www.charlesjeromeware.com. We are "here to make a difference." For a courtesy initial consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
Misplacement of Pedicle Screws in Spine Fusion Surgery.
Pedicle screws are sometimes used as an adjunct to spinal fusion surgery, and they provide a means of gripping a spinal segment. The screws themselves do not fixate the spinal segment, but in fact act as firm anchor points that can then be connected with a rod. There is a steep learning curve for placing pedicle screws, and only qualified surgeons comfortable and experienced with this difficult technique should attempt it. Misplacement of a pedicle screw during surgery, for example, is increasingly not a rare event.
Earlier in the 1980 's there was an unfortunate pedicle rod and screw breakage rate of about 10%.
Now, with modern pedicle screws, the breakage rate has been reduced to about one in 1,000. An analysis of 2,500 patients by 350 physicians conducted by the North American Spine Society found that the complication rate with using pedicle screws in spinal surgery is low. There is now approximately a one in 1,000 chance of nerve root damage, and a 2% to 3% chance of infection. A more likely scenario today would be the misplacement of the pedicle screw by the surgeon.
[http://www.spine-health.com/treatment/spinal-fusion/pedicle-screws-spine-fusion; http://www.medquestltd.com/misplacement-of-pedicle-screws-unlimited-case unlimited-case-reviews]
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
The Lawyer's Mailbox: WINNING MARYLAND LOW IMPACT CAR CRASH CASES: DEFEA...
The Lawyer's Mailbox: WINNING MARYLAND LOW IMPACT CAR CRASH CASES: DEFEA...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " We are here to make a difference. We fight, you win. " Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & ...
The Lawyer's Mailbox: MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION LAW CHALLENGES : A PRIMER
The Lawyer's Mailbox: MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION LAW CHALLENGES : A PRIMER: www.charlesjeromeware.com . For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. This nationally known and...
The Lawyer's Mailbox: MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION LAW CHALLENGES : A PRIMER
The Lawyer's Mailbox: MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION LAW CHALLENGES : A PRIMER: www.charlesjeromeware.com . For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. This nationally known and...
WINNING MARYLAND LOW IMPACT CAR CRASH CASES: DEFEATING THE "MIST" DEFENSE,www.charlesjeromeware.com
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " We are here to make a difference. We fight, you win. "
Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors, a nationally known and respected law firm, is one of Maryland and D. C.'s pre-eminent car crash and personal injury firms. For an initial courtesy
consultation, contact us at (410) 730- 5016 or (410) 720-6129. This information is not intended to be legal advice.
Winning car crash cases with little or no vehicle damage can be very difficult. However, with improved car construction, low vehicle damage collision cases with minor impact soft tissue (MIST) injury represent a large percentage of today's automobile personal injury cases. This group of victims is widely underrepresented by PI attorneys mainly because of the perceived lack of monetary value.
Through the adept use of or challenge against crash reconstructionists, use of treating physicians and forensic epidemiologists, inter alia, skilled car personal injury lawyers can disprove the insurance company defense tactics in MIST ( Minor Impact Soft Tissue) cases through the use of simple math, probability, research, the scientific method, and even plain old :common sense".
The fact is ,despite common perception, that drivers and passengers can be injured in so-called "low impact" or low-speed car crashes when there is little or no vehicle damage. In many instances, the treating physician may be the best ( and maybe the only) witness to call to testify about the plaintiff/victim's injuries resulting from the accident.
Since the insurance company's resources for their defense are much greater than those of the plaintiff/victim, the insurance company is far more likely to hire so-called experts who rely on "junk science" to defend themselves in MIST cases. They must be aggressively challenged head-on by the plaintiff/victim's attorney.
Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counselors, a nationally known and respected law firm, is one of Maryland and D. C.'s pre-eminent car crash and personal injury firms. For an initial courtesy
consultation, contact us at (410) 730- 5016 or (410) 720-6129. This information is not intended to be legal advice.
Winning car crash cases with little or no vehicle damage can be very difficult. However, with improved car construction, low vehicle damage collision cases with minor impact soft tissue (MIST) injury represent a large percentage of today's automobile personal injury cases. This group of victims is widely underrepresented by PI attorneys mainly because of the perceived lack of monetary value.
Through the adept use of or challenge against crash reconstructionists, use of treating physicians and forensic epidemiologists, inter alia, skilled car personal injury lawyers can disprove the insurance company defense tactics in MIST ( Minor Impact Soft Tissue) cases through the use of simple math, probability, research, the scientific method, and even plain old :common sense".
The fact is ,despite common perception, that drivers and passengers can be injured in so-called "low impact" or low-speed car crashes when there is little or no vehicle damage. In many instances, the treating physician may be the best ( and maybe the only) witness to call to testify about the plaintiff/victim's injuries resulting from the accident.
Since the insurance company's resources for their defense are much greater than those of the plaintiff/victim, the insurance company is far more likely to hire so-called experts who rely on "junk science" to defend themselves in MIST cases. They must be aggressively challenged head-on by the plaintiff/victim's attorney.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION LAW CHALLENGES : A PRIMER
www.charlesjeromeware.com. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016 or
(410) 720-6129. This nationally known and respected law firm is conveniently headquartered in the Baltimore and D.C. metropolitan area. The information presented herein is not intended to be legal advice, and should not be construed as such.
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION LAW
1. Most construction disputes in Maryland are governed by contract law.
2. With few exceptions and variations, the relevant and applicable law for construction
disputes in Maryland is similar that used in many other states.
3. It should be noted that Maryland is a contributory negligence state, and nota comparative
negligence state.
"Contributory negligence" is conduct on the part of the plaintiff that falls below the standard to which he or she should conform for his or her own protection, and which is a legally contributing
cause in addition to the negligence of defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm.
" Comparative negligence'" is the allocation of responsibility for damages incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant, based on the relative negligence of the two parties [ Barron's Law Dictionary, by Gifis, 3rd Ed; Prosser & Keeton,, Torts, Chap. 5 and 6 ( 5th Ed.)].
4. Maryland recognizes claims for breach of contract between owner and general contractor, and between general contractor and subcontractor.
5. There is a general 3-year statute of limitations when bringing a breach of contract claim in Maryland, and running of the statute is triggered by the "discovery rule" which states that the statute begins running when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the alleged breach of the contract [ MD. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, Section 5-101; DeGroft v. Lancaster Silo Co., Inc., 527 A.2d 1316, 1320 (Md. App. 1987)].
6. Damages: The amount of damages recoverable fot breach of contract is the which will put the injured party in the monetary position he or she would have been in had the contract been performed
[ Hall v. Lovell Regency Homes Ltd. Partnership, 708 A. 2dd 344, 349-350 (Md. App. 1998)].
7. In Maryland home owners who are subsequent purchasers can assert a common law negligence action against the original builder of a home for negligent construction and design [ Milton Co. v. Council of Unit Owners of Bentley lace Condominium, 708 A 2d 1047, 1056 (Md. App. 1998)].
8. Construction-wise, the obligation to use ordinary skill and care in constructing a house or performing other construction work is implied by law independent of any contract [ Worthington
Construction Corp. v. Moore, 291 A 2d 466, 467 ( Md. 1972)].
9. The Maryland Consumer Protection Act covers cases of fraud and misrepresentation in construction disputes [ MD Code, Commercial Law, Section 13-101].
10. E-Discovery challenges in construction cases are emerging that relate to the use of mobile devices software programs, etc.
(410) 720-6129. This nationally known and respected law firm is conveniently headquartered in the Baltimore and D.C. metropolitan area. The information presented herein is not intended to be legal advice, and should not be construed as such.
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF MARYLAND CONSTRUCTION LAW
1. Most construction disputes in Maryland are governed by contract law.
2. With few exceptions and variations, the relevant and applicable law for construction
disputes in Maryland is similar that used in many other states.
3. It should be noted that Maryland is a contributory negligence state, and nota comparative
negligence state.
"Contributory negligence" is conduct on the part of the plaintiff that falls below the standard to which he or she should conform for his or her own protection, and which is a legally contributing
cause in addition to the negligence of defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm.
" Comparative negligence'" is the allocation of responsibility for damages incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant, based on the relative negligence of the two parties [ Barron's Law Dictionary, by Gifis, 3rd Ed; Prosser & Keeton,, Torts, Chap. 5 and 6 ( 5th Ed.)].
4. Maryland recognizes claims for breach of contract between owner and general contractor, and between general contractor and subcontractor.
5. There is a general 3-year statute of limitations when bringing a breach of contract claim in Maryland, and running of the statute is triggered by the "discovery rule" which states that the statute begins running when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the alleged breach of the contract [ MD. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, Section 5-101; DeGroft v. Lancaster Silo Co., Inc., 527 A.2d 1316, 1320 (Md. App. 1987)].
6. Damages: The amount of damages recoverable fot breach of contract is the which will put the injured party in the monetary position he or she would have been in had the contract been performed
[ Hall v. Lovell Regency Homes Ltd. Partnership, 708 A. 2dd 344, 349-350 (Md. App. 1998)].
7. In Maryland home owners who are subsequent purchasers can assert a common law negligence action against the original builder of a home for negligent construction and design [ Milton Co. v. Council of Unit Owners of Bentley lace Condominium, 708 A 2d 1047, 1056 (Md. App. 1998)].
8. Construction-wise, the obligation to use ordinary skill and care in constructing a house or performing other construction work is implied by law independent of any contract [ Worthington
Construction Corp. v. Moore, 291 A 2d 466, 467 ( Md. 1972)].
9. The Maryland Consumer Protection Act covers cases of fraud and misrepresentation in construction disputes [ MD Code, Commercial Law, Section 13-101].
10. E-Discovery challenges in construction cases are emerging that relate to the use of mobile devices software programs, etc.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
The Lawyer's Mailbox: BALTIMORE LEAD -PAINT POISONING CASES DECREASED IN...
The Lawyer's Mailbox: BALTIMORE LEAD -PAINT POISONING CASES DECREASED IN...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " We are here to make a difference. We fight, you win." For an initial courtesy consultation, contact...
BALTIMORE LEAD -PAINT POISONING CASES DECREASED IN 2012: A Defense Update
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " We are here to make a difference. We fight, you win."
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
The information presented herein by the national lead-paint defense law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors, is not intended to be legal advice nor used as such.
Baltimore childhood lead poisoning cases dropped to 0.3 % in 2012; the lowest ever recorded since the annual survey began in 1993, the year before Maryland's Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act was enacted. Concomitantly, a significant number of new cases filed have been linked to homes not previously covered by the Maryland 1994 Lead Law [September 24, 2013, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) ; " Annual Surveillance Report", 2012 Maryland Childhood Lead Registry].
The new legislation passed in 2012 is designed to reduce lead poisoning cases in homes that had not been covered under Maryland law. A key provision of that new lead law takes effect in January 2015 [Statewide-2012-Childhood-Lead-Surveillance].
The Report's figures also represent a decrease of more than 98 % in the percentage of young children reported to have lead poisoning since 1993. Much of the decline in blood lead levels is the result of implementation and enforcement of Maryland's lead law. The Report also shows that more than 110,000 Maryland children were tested in 2012 --- an increase from the previous year of 2011.
Maryland's 1994 lead law applies to rental units built before 1950, when lead paint was prohibited in Baltimore City. In Maryland counties outside of Baltimore City, more than 8 out of 10 confirmed cases of an initial report of lead poisoning involved children living in post-1949 rental housing or owner -occupied housing. The legislation passed in the 2012 Maryland General Assembly session and signed into law by Governor Martin O'Malley is designed to reduce the risk of lead poisoning in these newer rental units and in owner-occupied properties.
[ http://news.maryland.gov/mde/2013/09/25/lead_poisoning_cases_drop_many-cases_linked_to_]
For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
The information presented herein by the national lead-paint defense law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors, is not intended to be legal advice nor used as such.
Baltimore childhood lead poisoning cases dropped to 0.3 % in 2012; the lowest ever recorded since the annual survey began in 1993, the year before Maryland's Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act was enacted. Concomitantly, a significant number of new cases filed have been linked to homes not previously covered by the Maryland 1994 Lead Law [September 24, 2013, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) ; " Annual Surveillance Report", 2012 Maryland Childhood Lead Registry].
The new legislation passed in 2012 is designed to reduce lead poisoning cases in homes that had not been covered under Maryland law. A key provision of that new lead law takes effect in January 2015 [Statewide-2012-Childhood-Lead-Surveillance].
The Report's figures also represent a decrease of more than 98 % in the percentage of young children reported to have lead poisoning since 1993. Much of the decline in blood lead levels is the result of implementation and enforcement of Maryland's lead law. The Report also shows that more than 110,000 Maryland children were tested in 2012 --- an increase from the previous year of 2011.
Maryland's 1994 lead law applies to rental units built before 1950, when lead paint was prohibited in Baltimore City. In Maryland counties outside of Baltimore City, more than 8 out of 10 confirmed cases of an initial report of lead poisoning involved children living in post-1949 rental housing or owner -occupied housing. The legislation passed in the 2012 Maryland General Assembly session and signed into law by Governor Martin O'Malley is designed to reduce the risk of lead poisoning in these newer rental units and in owner-occupied properties.
[ http://news.maryland.gov/mde/2013/09/25/lead_poisoning_cases_drop_many-cases_linked_to_]
The Lawyer's Mailbox: The Lawyer's Mailbox: BALTIMORE LANDLORD LEAD PAIN...
The Lawyer's Mailbox: The Lawyer's Mailbox: BALTIMORE LANDLORD LEAD PAIN...: The Lawyer's Mailbox: BALTIMORE LANDLORD LEAD PAINT & POISONING DEFENSE ... : www.charlesjeromeware.com . " We are here to make...
MARYLAND LEAD POISONING DEFENSE, USAA vs. RILEY, & EXPERT TESTIMONY: A SUMMARY
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " We are here to make a difference. We fight, you win."
The national lead poisoning defense law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors, is conveniently located in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. The information provided in this blog is not intended to be legal advice.
UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (USAA) v. RITA RILEY, ET AL., Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 40, September Term, 2005 ( Decision: June 1st, 2006).
Significant Rulings:
1. An expert's response to questions about the estimated time respondent children were initially exposed to lead, where the questions about the children's lead exposure asked for an answer in connection with a specific time frame, were not unreliable because the expert later expanded his testimony to conclude that the children had been injured by any exposure to lead during their tenancy.
2. An expert witness's answers that were responsive to the questions asked, when he later expanded testimony regarding the children's potential exposure to lead, does not mean that the expert's testimony was so contradictory as to be unreliable.
3. The Maryland Court of Appeals' precedent case of Chantel Assocs. v. Mt. Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 338 Md. 131, 656 A. 2d 779 (1995), is dispositive of the instant case because the definition of : bodily injury" is identical to that in Chantel and as such, bodily injury can be said to mean any localized abnormal condition of the living body.
4. Even assuming, arguendo, that an expert contradicted an earlier statement he made about injuries due to lead exposure, the seemingly contradictory statement is a matter for resolution by the trier of fact, and not the judge ruling on summary judgment.
5. It would be in the interests of justice to allow the trial court to consider, on remand, recent research that supports the expert witness' testimony, and demonstrates that lead levels below the limit set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are disproportionately injurious, causing more harm up to the limit than beyond.
6. Where the application of a limit-of-liability provision in each of four liability policies issued by the same insurer was at issue, ambiguity existed where the policy did not reference the effect of subsequent policies on the limit of liability clause, and the plain language of the policies could lead a reasonably prudent person to read the policies to mean that each separate policy is implicated by a continuing occurrence, while the insurer argues that the liability coverage is limited to a single per occurrence limit when bodily injury spans more than one policy period.
The national lead poisoning defense law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors, is conveniently located in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. For an initial courtesy consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129. The information provided in this blog is not intended to be legal advice.
UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (USAA) v. RITA RILEY, ET AL., Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 40, September Term, 2005 ( Decision: June 1st, 2006).
Significant Rulings:
1. An expert's response to questions about the estimated time respondent children were initially exposed to lead, where the questions about the children's lead exposure asked for an answer in connection with a specific time frame, were not unreliable because the expert later expanded his testimony to conclude that the children had been injured by any exposure to lead during their tenancy.
2. An expert witness's answers that were responsive to the questions asked, when he later expanded testimony regarding the children's potential exposure to lead, does not mean that the expert's testimony was so contradictory as to be unreliable.
3. The Maryland Court of Appeals' precedent case of Chantel Assocs. v. Mt. Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 338 Md. 131, 656 A. 2d 779 (1995), is dispositive of the instant case because the definition of : bodily injury" is identical to that in Chantel and as such, bodily injury can be said to mean any localized abnormal condition of the living body.
4. Even assuming, arguendo, that an expert contradicted an earlier statement he made about injuries due to lead exposure, the seemingly contradictory statement is a matter for resolution by the trier of fact, and not the judge ruling on summary judgment.
5. It would be in the interests of justice to allow the trial court to consider, on remand, recent research that supports the expert witness' testimony, and demonstrates that lead levels below the limit set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are disproportionately injurious, causing more harm up to the limit than beyond.
6. Where the application of a limit-of-liability provision in each of four liability policies issued by the same insurer was at issue, ambiguity existed where the policy did not reference the effect of subsequent policies on the limit of liability clause, and the plain language of the policies could lead a reasonably prudent person to read the policies to mean that each separate policy is implicated by a continuing occurrence, while the insurer argues that the liability coverage is limited to a single per occurrence limit when bodily injury spans more than one policy period.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
The Lawyer's Mailbox: BALTIMORE LANDLORD LEAD PAINT & POISONING DEFENSE ...
The Lawyer's Mailbox: BALTIMORE LANDLORD LEAD PAINT & POISONING DEFENSE ...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " We are here to make a difference. We fight, you win." For a courtesy initial consultation, contact ...
BALTIMORE LANDLORD LEAD PAINT & POISONING DEFENSE ATTORNEYS REVIEW
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " We are here to make a difference. We fight, you win."
For a courtesy initial consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
See the following blogs, among others written by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware :
- February 26, 2013, " Maryland's Best Lead Paint Defense Lawyers".
- May 2, 2013, " Lead Paint Defense Law In Maryland By Attorney Charles Ware."
- August 31, 2013, Defending Baltimore Lead Paint Poisoning Cases."
- December 17, 2013, " Maryland Lead Paint Defense Alert."
For a courtesy initial consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016 or (410) 720-6129.
See the following blogs, among others written by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware :
- February 26, 2013, " Maryland's Best Lead Paint Defense Lawyers".
- May 2, 2013, " Lead Paint Defense Law In Maryland By Attorney Charles Ware."
- August 31, 2013, Defending Baltimore Lead Paint Poisoning Cases."
- December 17, 2013, " Maryland Lead Paint Defense Alert."
The Lawyer's Mailbox: MARYLAND ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY MED. MAL. UPDATE: ROTA...
The Lawyer's Mailbox: MARYLAND ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY MED. MAL. UPDATE: ROTA...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " Here to make a difference. We fight, you win." A case overview from " MedQuest, Thu.,01/02/20...
The Lawyer's Mailbox: MARYLAND ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY MED. MAL. UPDATE: ROTA...
The Lawyer's Mailbox: MARYLAND ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY MED. MAL. UPDATE: ROTA...: www.charlesjeromeware.com . " Here to make a difference. We fight, you win." A case overview from " MedQuest, Thu.,01/02/20...
MARYLAND ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY MED. MAL. UPDATE: ROTATOR CUFF SURGERY
www.charlesjeromeware.com. " Here to make a difference. We fight, you win."
A case overview from " MedQuest, Thu.,01/02/2014,info@medquestltd.com, 345 Seventh Ave., Suite 504, New York, N.Y. 10001. The information provided in this blog is not intended to be used as legal advice.
BRACHIAL PLEXUS INJURY POST- ROTATOR CUFF SURGERY
Rotator cuff surgery November 28, 2012. Brachial Plexus nerve bundle was stretched.
She is unable to participate in her ADL's since she's right handed. The EMG studies show some improvement in her conduction studies, but functionally her hand was still unable to work right. She has shooting pains in her right upper extremity and her fingers that ranges from 5-10 and averages 7.
Issue:
Is it malpractice to receive a stretch injury to the right brachial plexus during a rotator cuff surgery?
MedQuest Expert Opinions:
This is not negligent unless there was a negligent event in the OR such as dropping the patient or something reported in an incident report by the nurses.
Dr. JA - Orthopedist
It is unusual but neurologic injury is a risk of any surgery. Could also be a risk of Anesthesia if a nerve block was performed.
Dr. RS - Orthopedist
Plexus injury cases hard to prove, can occur.
Dr. MS - Orthopedist
A case overview from " MedQuest, Thu.,01/02/2014,info@medquestltd.com, 345 Seventh Ave., Suite 504, New York, N.Y. 10001. The information provided in this blog is not intended to be used as legal advice.
BRACHIAL PLEXUS INJURY POST- ROTATOR CUFF SURGERY
Rotator cuff surgery November 28, 2012. Brachial Plexus nerve bundle was stretched.
She is unable to participate in her ADL's since she's right handed. The EMG studies show some improvement in her conduction studies, but functionally her hand was still unable to work right. She has shooting pains in her right upper extremity and her fingers that ranges from 5-10 and averages 7.
Issue:
Is it malpractice to receive a stretch injury to the right brachial plexus during a rotator cuff surgery?
MedQuest Expert Opinions:
This is not negligent unless there was a negligent event in the OR such as dropping the patient or something reported in an incident report by the nurses.
Dr. JA - Orthopedist
It is unusual but neurologic injury is a risk of any surgery. Could also be a risk of Anesthesia if a nerve block was performed.
Dr. RS - Orthopedist
Plexus injury cases hard to prove, can occur.
Dr. MS - Orthopedist
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
The Lawyer's Mailbox: BALTIMORE BITCOIN PRIMER, 2014 : www.charlesjerome...
The Lawyer's Mailbox: BALTIMORE BITCOIN PRIMER, 2014 : www.charlesjerome...: www.chaerlesjeromewaare.com . " Here to make a difference. " The contents of this blog are not intended to be used as legal advi...
BALTIMORE BITCOIN PRIMER, 2014 : www.charlesjeromeware.com
www.chaerlesjeromewaare.com. " Here to make a difference. " The contents of this blog are not intended to be used as legal advice.
BITCOIN is the world's first completely decentralized digital currency.
Just five years ago (2009), knowledge of Bitcoin was restricted to a handful of
hobbyists on Internet forums. Today, the Bitcoin economy is larger than the economies of some of the world's smaller nations.
The value of a bitcoin (or "BTC") has grown and fluctuated greatly over the past five years, from pennies in its early days to more than $ 260.00 a bitcoin at its peak in April 2013. The current market capitalization of the Bitcoin economy is estimated to be more than $ 1 billion.
Businesses big and small are showing increasing interest in integrating the bitcoin monetary system into their financial operations and they are providing new services and products within the bitcoin economy. Venture capitalists, as well, are increasingly eager to put their money behinh this growing industry.
The creation and development of the Bitcoin system of digital currency and its rapid successes could be argued to be an exciting testament to the creativity and ingenuity of the modern entrepreneur.
However, Bitcoin does have its detractors. Because Bitcoin is decentralized and can to a degree
be used pseudonymously, it has naturally attracted the attention of government currency regulators
and others who engage in the currency regulation field. For example, it appears that the same qualities that make Bitcoin attractive as a payment system could also allow Bitcoin users to evade taxes, launder money, and trade illicit goods. Both the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network )FinCEN) of the U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department of Justice have released official statements regarding the regulation of virtual currencies, including Bitcoin.
[ Also see, BITCOIN:A Primer for Policymakers/by Jerry Brito and Andrea Castillo/ Mercatus Center, George Mason University(2013); U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes and Enforcement Network, " Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies"(Regulatory Guidance, FIN-2013-G001,US Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C., March 18,2013, http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-GOO1.html; " US Regulators Eye Bitcoin Supervision",Financial Times,May 6,2013/Alloway,Meyer and Foley/ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/O/b 810157c-b651-11e2-93ba-00144feabdc0.html; "Bitcoin Startups Begin to Attract Real Cash", Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2013/ Needleman and Ante/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014444424127887323687604578469012375269952.html;
Financial information in this blog is provided at bitcoincharts.com, and estimates total market capitalization to be $ 1,457,815,292 as of May 29, 2013]
BITCOIN is the world's first completely decentralized digital currency.
Just five years ago (2009), knowledge of Bitcoin was restricted to a handful of
hobbyists on Internet forums. Today, the Bitcoin economy is larger than the economies of some of the world's smaller nations.
The value of a bitcoin (or "BTC") has grown and fluctuated greatly over the past five years, from pennies in its early days to more than $ 260.00 a bitcoin at its peak in April 2013. The current market capitalization of the Bitcoin economy is estimated to be more than $ 1 billion.
Businesses big and small are showing increasing interest in integrating the bitcoin monetary system into their financial operations and they are providing new services and products within the bitcoin economy. Venture capitalists, as well, are increasingly eager to put their money behinh this growing industry.
The creation and development of the Bitcoin system of digital currency and its rapid successes could be argued to be an exciting testament to the creativity and ingenuity of the modern entrepreneur.
However, Bitcoin does have its detractors. Because Bitcoin is decentralized and can to a degree
be used pseudonymously, it has naturally attracted the attention of government currency regulators
and others who engage in the currency regulation field. For example, it appears that the same qualities that make Bitcoin attractive as a payment system could also allow Bitcoin users to evade taxes, launder money, and trade illicit goods. Both the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network )FinCEN) of the U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Department of Justice have released official statements regarding the regulation of virtual currencies, including Bitcoin.
[ Also see, BITCOIN:A Primer for Policymakers/by Jerry Brito and Andrea Castillo/ Mercatus Center, George Mason University(2013); U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes and Enforcement Network, " Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies"(Regulatory Guidance, FIN-2013-G001,US Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C., March 18,2013, http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-GOO1.html; " US Regulators Eye Bitcoin Supervision",Financial Times,May 6,2013/Alloway,Meyer and Foley/ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/O/b 810157c-b651-11e2-93ba-00144feabdc0.html; "Bitcoin Startups Begin to Attract Real Cash", Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2013/ Needleman and Ante/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014444424127887323687604578469012375269952.html;
Financial information in this blog is provided at bitcoincharts.com, and estimates total market capitalization to be $ 1,457,815,292 as of May 29, 2013]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)