Lawyer Says Man Dragged off Plane Has Concussion, Lost Teeth, Broken Nose

[niyad]

Last edited Thu Apr 13, 2017, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Lawyer Says Man Dragged off Plane Has Concussion, Lost Teeth


A lawyer for a passenger dragged from a United Express flight says the man suffered a "significant" concussion and broken nose, and he lost two front teeth.



CHICAGO (AP) — A passenger dragged from a United Express flight suffered a "significant" concussion and broken nose, and he lost two front teeth, one of his lawyers said Thursday. Dr. David Dao has been discharged from a hospital but he will require reconstructive surgery, said attorney Thomas Demetrio, whose law firm is representing the 69-year-old Kentucky physician. Dao was removed from the plane Sunday after he refused to give up his seat on the full flight from Chicago to Louisville. One of Dao's five children, Crystal Pepper, said the family was "horrified, shocked and sickened" to learn and see what happened. She said seeing her father removed from the Sunday flight was "exacerbated" by the fact it was caught on video and widely distributed.
Demetrio said he likely will file a lawsuit on Dao's behalf, adding that airlines — and United in particular — have long "bullied" passengers.

The video of a passenger being dragged by an officer from a United Express flight shined an unwanted spotlight on the little-known police force that guards Chicago's two main airports and could threaten the agency's future. Chicago's aviation officers are not part of the regular police force, unlike in many other big cities. They get less training than regular officers and can't carry firearms inside the airports. Three of them were put on leave amid outrage over how they treated the passenger. Cellphone footage of the confrontation "really has put it at risk," Alderman Chris Taliaferro said Wednesday, a day before aldermen were scheduled to grill United and the Chicago Aviation Department about why a Kentucky physician was yanked out of his seat after he refused to get off the full jetliner at O'Hare Airport.

The City Council is looking for answers about the embarrassing video that has been seen around the world. At the top of the list of questions is whether the airport officers even had the legal authority to board the plane, said Alderman Michael Zalewski, who leads the council's aviation committee. "They are allowed in the terminal and baggage area, but my understanding is they may not be allowed on a plane," he said. Zalewski also said that he is not sure if the officers have the authority to make arrests or if they are authorized only to write tickets.

An Aviation Department spokeswoman did not respond to questions about the duties of the aviation police force, but Zalewski said the agency's commissioner will be asked that on Thursday.
The department will also be asked about training. Zalewski said airport officers receive four months of training compared with the six months cadets must complete before joining the city's police department. "We don't know what that two-month gap means," he said, adding that he will ask if the airport officers receive the same kind of training in de-escalating tense situations that city police officers get.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-04-13/uproar-over-united-video-imperils-chicago-airport-police

[2naSalit]

1. K&R

I just heard that on NPR too.

[niyad]

2. absolutely sickening. I read one report from business insider that did not even use his proper

title. coverup time.

[d_r]

3. clusterfudge

[Iggo]

4. That's what happens when you use cops to solve a customer service issue.

Fuck you, United.

You fucked up.

Now eat shit.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

25. I just had a pretty heated exchance with Verizon

All I was thinking was it sure is nice that they can't send thugs to my house to assault me when they decide their finished arguing with me.

[chia]

5. Good lord, this gets worse and worse

I'm so thankful for cellphone cameras and people willing and able to take the footage and post it. Without the video evidence, United and the jack-booted thugs could have gotten away with this.

[PoliticAverse]

34. Having actual video evidence really makes a difference. We're in the age of video. n/r

[chia]

57. Yep. Remember this video where he incited violence? "Knock the crap outta them, would you?"

[Rollo]

6. The Trump Era has put the thug back into Rethugnican...

And all his little wanna-be nazi storm troopers have answered the call...

[tallahasseedem]

7. Where are all of the United apologists today?

Very quiet I see.

[dalton99a]

22. The corporatist cheerleaders should be ashamed of themselves

I bet those pro-corporate authoritarians have never voted for a Democrat, and probably never will either.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

29. No, I think it is something else entirely.

I think they see these types of situations as the "privileged" getting their comeuppance.

[athena]

8. Poor guy.

No one deserves to have a broken nose and to lose teeth and need reconstructive surgery for daring to refuse an illegal order.

My heart goes out to him and his family.

[Stargazer99]

9. this is what happens when you let business be without rules

[PoliticAverse]

31. Apparently it was the airport security officers that were operating "without rules".

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. Sickening

[Binkie The Clown]

11. We only know about this because there are cameras everywhere today.

Do you think George Zimmerman would have gotten away with murder if there were good video surveillance of public streets? You can gripe all you want about cameras invading your privacy, but I think public spaces should have lots of cameras watching them. But not cameras watched only by "big brother". Public spaces cameras should be open feeds on the Internet for anyone to see. A lot of crime and injustice would go away, and the George Zimmerman's of the world could no longer get away with murder.

[niyad]

12. you make a very good point

[steve2470]

14. excellent point!! nt

[kairos12]

13. The security guy's actions were the type egged on by Drumpt during his rallies when protesters were

present.

[niyad]

15. the slime has certainly come out from under the rocks.

[Vinca]

16. Not to worry. By the time that attorney is done with United, the guy will be able to afford

his own airliner.

[PoliticAverse]

27. Wouldn't he be getting a bigger settlement from the city of Chicago? n/t

[Vinca]

36. Maybe, but United employees were present and didn't stop the brutality.

Either way, there are going to be very large checks passing hands.

[HopeAgain]

17. Sure United handled this horribly

but the aviation officer should be charged with criminal assault.

[niyad]

18. indeed. not just put on leave or whatever.

[spooky3]

19. one minor point

Totally agree that this is a horrifyingly bad situation. Even if there was absolutely no law broken (and as a non-lawyer, from what I've read that does NOT appear to be the case), the CEO handled this badly, and it appears to me that the airline crew may have been hampered by bad company policies, such as not having the authority to offer higher compensation to get volunteers. United is totally at fault and needs to be held responsible.

However, I caught part of Dao's lawyer's remarks this morning and have a minor quibble. He criticized the CEO for initially backing the United/partner employees. If in fact they were 100% following the company's bad policies, they were put in a terrible position. I think the lawyer needs to redirect his criticism indirectly of the employees, to the bad policies of United and the security firm. The CEO's refraining from scapegoating is better than the Wells Fargo disaster.

[SFnomad]

20. They're not going to offer higher compensation for volunteers

That would make the compensation for volunteers more than the maximum compensation for involuntarily bumping someone.

And when the airline involuntarily bumps someone, they're going to choose the people that have paid the least, because then, they won't be reaching the required maximum payout.

[spooky3]

21. as I understand it, the "maximum" means

the maximum that airlines are legally required to offer when passengers are bumped. But nothing prevents an airline from setting higher levels of compensation. With the appropriate flexibility, airlines could entirely avoid having involuntarily displaced passengers. And this would be FAR cheaper than dealing with what they are now dealing with.

Many commentators have said this.

[SFnomad]

24. I've read that United involuntarily bumps about 3000 to 4000 people per year

And this is the first time we've ever heard of something like this happening. Companies would never, as a typical course of business, pay more to get some to volunteer, than they would have to pay someone involuntarily. Sure, it's easy to look at this in hindsight and say it would be cheaper ... but nobody is going to look at this incident as something that might happen.

Two weeks ago, if you looked at this policy and said to someone ... but how much would it cost if some rent-a-cops went rogue and concussed someone and broke out his teeth, how much would that costs us? So let's spend millions of dollars a year to avoid that possibility. You'd be laughed at.

[PoliticAverse]

28. Some airlines do, because they realize to do otherwise can be penny wise and pound foolish.

Last edited Thu Apr 13, 2017, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Don't you think United regrets not doing so about now?

[SFnomad]

48. Being an armchair quarterback from the cheap seats is easy

With hindsight, anyone can do it ... even you.

[PoliticAverse]

51. Yes we can't all have the foresight United's CEO has. n/t

[spooky3]

53. Yet, even with hindsight, you can't see it.

[spooky3]

43. Sorry, I can't agree with this. It is very easy for a GOOD manager to anticipate that there would

be rare instances where it would be necessary to offer higher than typical compensation, and to provide the authority and appropriate discretion to employees as to when and how to do this.

It's all part of risk management. Businesses have to manage lots of different types of risks, some of rare but potentially catastrophic events, and some occurring more commonly but carrying potentially less costly consequences, and everything in between.

How would you or anyone else know what policies (formal or informal) all of the airlines use (vs. minima or maxima that they may report publicly)? How do you know that airlines have not actually offered and paid certain types or levels of compensation where necessary, such that the result is that none of us ever hear about these incidents, because they are successful at avoiding problems, i.e., these companies are better at this type of risk management than is United?

[pnwmom]

23. They only offered 800 but the max they would be required to pay for an involuntarily bump

was 1325 --so they weren't even close.

HOWEVER, that is only the max they were required to pay -- there was no limit to what they could CHOOSE to pay for volunteers.

[SFnomad]

26. The maximum is 4 times the cost of a one-way ticket, up to $1325

My guess would be that the minimum one-way tickets on that flight were no more than $200 ... and if they bumped those people, they would be paying out no more than $800.

If you give a company a maximum they're required to pay ... you're not going to get that company to voluntarily pay more, at least not as policy. It's naïve to believe otherwise.

[PoliticAverse]

30. And it is ignorance to not know that some other airlines actually have payed more than required...

because it can be good customer service.

[SFnomad]

37. I've never heard of an airline paying more ... that doesn't mean you can't find one

or two anecdotal situations out of tens of thousands where they have.

But you won't find an airline that does it as a matter of policy ... at least you won't find a US based airline that does.

[tazkcmo]

42. Well that settles that.

I mean, YOU'VE never heard of it so that settles it.

[SFnomad]

46. Please, continue to be an ass about it

I stated I hadn't heard it happening. That I'm sure you can find anecdotal evidence of it happening a few time.

And that airlines wouldn't allow this as a matter of standard policy.

[tazkcmo]

49. projection. n/t

[SFnomad]

50. No projection, that's all you n/t

[SFnomad]

60. It doesn't seem like Delta could before now .... just what I was saying

Delta OKs offers of up to $9,950 to flyers who give up seats

Delta Air Lines is moving to make it easier to find customers willing to give up their seats. In an internal memo obtained Friday by The Associated Press, Delta said gate agents can offer up to $2,000, up from a previous maximum of $800, and supervisors can offer up to $9,950, up from $1,350.

And I would bet that no other US airline allowed agents to offer over $1350 either, before this happened. Even if it would be "good customer service".

[pnwmom]

35. But there is no maximum at all for VOLUNTEERS to be bumped, as opposed to involuntary bumpees.

And other airlines have paid more in voluntary compensation than they would have been required to pay -- and made much smarter business decisions than UA did.

It's naive to believe that UA made the best decision they could.

[SFnomad]

38. You might be able to find ancedotal evidence of this (and I notice you didn't supply

any evidence of this) ... but you won't find it as a matter of policy, at least not at any major US airliner.

[pnwmom]

39. I presume they all have policies not to make incredibly stupid decisions at the gate.

Stopping at $800 and letting a whole plane of passengers armed with cell phones witness this man's extraction was incredibly stupid.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/news/companies/how-much-to-give-up-an-airline-seat/


What gate agents are willing to offer depends more on the situation than on the airline, said Robert Mann, the head of airline consulting firm R.W. Mann & Company. It boils down to "how badly they need volunteers" and how willing customers are to accept other flights, he said.

Brett Snyder, a former airline executive and editor of the travel blog Crankyflier.com, said it's rare for airlines to offer more than $1,350 for a voluntary seat surrender, but he's heard of it happening.

"Sometimes you're just desperate to find the passengers who agree to be bumped, like United should have been," Snyder said. "It would have saved them a lot of money if they had offered more."

[spooky3]

45. That really is not true. Organizations pay more than they are legally required to pay for all sorts

of things, if they believe it is in their best interests to do so, and they may or may not make their policies public. For example, many corporations pay above the minimum wage for many jobs. Sometimes they do it because the market dictates that they won't fill the jobs otherwise -- similar to the scenario we have with United, except United didn't go to the market rate to attract volunteers. Sometimes they do it because they get higher quality outcomes, e.g., better qualified workers in the case of pay rates.

Where are your links to support your claims?

[SFnomad]

47. The maximums payouts required are Federal Law

That they wouldn't offer more than the possible maximum is common sense. Businesses don't typically spend more money than they have to. As I've said in other posts, I'm sure you can find a few times where they have ... but it's not going to be something that airlines standardly offer. I've been flying frequently for about 20 years and have seen a lot of overbooked flights. I've seen them offer $200 to $400 and rarely $600 to $800, but nothing more, ever.

Once you reach the point where you've offered as much (or more) for voluntary, than what involuntary boarding will cost, they don't go higher.

[spooky3]

54. And I have a lot of experience advising on a number of managerial practices, and I don't agree.

Let's see what policy changes United devises, if they disclose it. If I were a gambler, I would put money on their giving more latitude to employees, within new guidelines. But we may never see what the policy looks like because most businesses have no requirement to disclose this type of practice.

[SFnomad]

55. I'm sure they will make changes. I believe they already have, in that they won't call

rent-a-cops anymore for over boarding issues. Not sure if that applies to airports that have real police officers as well.

But if they were to look over these policies 2 weeks ago ... I would bet you they wouldn't have made any changes at all to it.

[SFnomad]

61. It appears you were wrong .. at least when it comes to Delta

Delta OKs offers of up to $9,950 to flyers who give up seats

Delta Air Lines is moving to make it easier to find customers willing to give up their seats. In an internal memo obtained Friday by The Associated Press, Delta said gate agents can offer up to $2,000, up from a previous maximum of $800, and supervisors can offer up to $9,950, up from $1,350.

Before this happened, Delta agents couldn't offer more than $800 and supervisors not more than $1350 ... just what I was saying. And I doubt any other major US carrier would be any different.

[Bengus81]

32. Oh oh...time for United to REALLY dig up DIRT on this guy...

I think his "pharma" thing has already been forgotten.

[niyad]

33. dig it up or manufacture it in the "alternative facts" factory

[Bleacher Creature]

40. United could have given him $1M and free flights for life to get off the plane.

And still wind up ahead after what they're going to pay in PR, lost market share, and compensation.

[niyad]

59. united lost over a billion the first day when stocks lost nearly 4%. a fraction of its worth,

but still. . . a good start.

[tazkcmo]

41. He deserved it.

Probably not a REAL doctor, anyway. After all, doctors don't behave the way he did. There's a book some where that lays out all the ways REAL doctors behave and ways they do not behave. He also has a name similar to another person that has a record, so that's enough right there to knock him out. Plus, this has nothing to do with United at all. The UA CEO was just apologizing because he felt bad for the guy right after he didn't but it doesn't matter because UA didn't have anything to do with it. UA didn't knock him out, either, it was the not-real-cops-cops that did it. But you can't blame them either. The fake doctor didn't comply meekly. He had the audacity to stand up (By sitting no less! Sad.) for his perceived rights that really don't exist because UA (Remember, UA not involved!) can do what ever they want although they didn't do anything at all because UA wasn't involved.

Is that clear enough for you all?

[Iggo]

52. Crys-tal !!!

[dalton99a]

56. And now the fake lawyers are involved because of his fake injuries

[tazkcmo]

58. And he'll win

All that real money!