Steinger, Greene & Feiner, a prominent law firm in South Florida, recently organized a blood drive in partnership with OneBlood, a non-profit organization that is responsible for providing safe, available, and affordable blood to those in need. The blood drive was held at three locations – West Palm Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, and Fort Lauderdale – and was a huge success.
Thanks to the efforts of the 30 donors, Steinger, Greene, and Feiner were able to collect 35 units of blood that were used to benefit 105 patients. This was a great example of how, when we come together, we can make a significant difference and save lives.
OneBlood is an organization that is committed to enhancing the health and well-being of others through their work with blood and stem cell products, as well as by facilitating scientific research. Their mission is to become the leading world-class blood system in the innovation of new services, technology, and research that positively impact blood product safety and availability, and enhance the lives of team members.
At OneBlood, their values are based on execution, innovation, continuous improvement, agility, and respect. They are committed to ensuring that their services are accessible to all and that they continue to make a positive impact in the communities they serve.
The blood drive organized by Steinger, Greene & Feiner is a great example of how individuals and organizations can work together to make a difference and positively impact the lives of others. We all have the power to contribute to our communities and make a change. Let us continue to do so and make the world a better place, one step at a time.
About the Author
Michael Feiner
Michael A. Feiner is a partner in the Fort Lauderdale office of Steinger, Greene & Feiner. Since being admitted to the Florida Bar in 2001, Michael has devoted his practice to representing plaintiffs throughout Florida in various tort and strict liability cases and has successfully litigated cases against national insurance companies, large public companies, and governmental agencies, resulting in tens of millions of dollars for his clients.
He has handled all types of personal injury and wrongful death cases on behalf of plaintiffs, including automobile negligence, premises liability, medical malpractice, product liability, dog bites, and sexual harassment. Michael’s product liability case against Microsoft, as well as his representation of victims of sexual harassment and abuse by physicians, has garnered him important media attention at both the local and national levels.
Michael is an experienced trial lawyer and successfully argued an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. In the reported decision Ortlieb v. Butts, 849 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Michael persuaded the Fourth District Court of Appeal that a directed verdict on liability was appropriate where the defendant did not rebut the presumption of negligence of a rear driver in a rear-end collision.
Michael Feiner
Michael A. Feiner is a partner in the Fort Lauderdale office of Steinger, Greene & Feiner. Since being admitted to the Florida Bar in 2001, Michael has devoted his practice to representing plaintiffs throughout Florida in various tort and strict liability cases and has successfully litigated cases against national insurance companies, large public companies, and governmental agencies, resulting in tens of millions of dollars for his clients. He has handled all types of personal injury and wrongful death cases on behalf of plaintiffs, including automobile negligence, premises liability, medical malpractice, product liability, dog bites, and sexual harassment. Michael’s product liability case against Microsoft, as well as his representation of victims of sexual harassment and abuse by physicians, has garnered him important media attention at both the local and national levels. Michael is an experienced trial lawyer and successfully argued an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. In the reported decision Ortlieb v. Butts, 849 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Michael persuaded the Fourth District Court of Appeal that a directed verdict on liability was appropriate where the defendant did not rebut the presumption of negligence of a rear driver in a rear-end collision.