Stockton Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Commented

Big Business Brain Washing America

Lawrence Knapp — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:06:21 GMT

The United States Chamber of Commerce, which represents three million businesses, is going to show an ad campaign that omits key facts to movie goers this summer. Big Business hopes that this “Faces of Lawsuit Abuse” ad campaign, from its Institute for Legal Reform, can revitalize interest in changing the civil justice system to their advantage. Big Business knows that if it can effectively influence the common citizen into believeing that their justice system is unjust, they have effectively performed mass jury tampering. Lawyers and Judges involved in personal injury lawsuits already know that Big Business has had alot of success over the last twenty years in changing the common person's attitudes toward the civil justice system. Potential jurors can get downright hostile when asked about their attitudes regarding awarding damages for pain and suffering. That is exactly the type of jurors the insurance industry wants. The tales, now running on radio, television and the Internet, will appear on the big screen for audiences in Washington, D.C., and in Colorado and Louisiana. The plan is to then expand to theaters nationwide. Don't be brain washed into believeing that our system of justice is unjust. It just ain't true.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lawrence Knapp

California Insurance Companies Are Immune From Third Party Bad Faith Cases

Lawrence Knapp — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:12:53 GMT

You probably don't know it but you can get justice in Kentucky from Insurance Companies run amok, but you can't in California. In this case, for nearly two years, the company – -- American Physicians Assurance Corp., which insures many Kentucky doctors – -- refused to engage in settlement discussions. The problem was the CEO's and CFO's and the rest of the minions knew that the doctor was at fault and they knew and yet they did not want to pay (probably delaying payment to make interest or profit on some other investment.) When it finally made an offer, after nearly two years, it proposed paying Daniels, the plaintiff, only $75,000, even though the company's internal documents showed it had valued her damages at $1 million, according to court records. In California she would have absolutely no remedy, because the Supreme Court long ago said that Insurance Companies in this state can not be held accountable for third party bad faith. Kentucky, on the other hand, gives their citizens justice.

In keeping with my latest trend of commenting on the comments to this article. In this particular thread it is obvious that the empathy from many of the commenters is with the insurance industry. Imagine that, they take our money in the form of premiums, deny payment on righteous claims and are still able to convince the public that they are getting taken advantage of by attorneys. If it don't walk like a duck. It's not a duck.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lawrence Knapp

Some People Get It and Some Don't

Lawrence Knapp — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:29:19 GMT

The comments people make in response to internet news of tragedy amazes me. Take for example the comments to the article printed BY BETH HUNDSDORFER - News-Democrat regarding the 13-year-old boy who was crushed by an overloaded dump truck. Apparently the company that overloaded the truck knew it, yet failed to lighten the load when asked. Instead they refused. The complaint also brings into question the competence of the truck driver. Anyway, the point is that below the article are the comments and the first one clearly shows someone who understands the purpose of a wrongful death suit and the value of our jury system.

I feel so bad for that family. I hope they get a lot of money. I know money doesn't replace a life but at least it will be an example for other companies regarding negligence.

To me, this person understands that the lawsuit may change the behavior of the defendant and other businesses for the benefit of society. Obviously, a trial lawyer wants to get a great monetary result for the client. But, the benefit the civil justice system provides to society truely is invaluable and underappreciated.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lawrence Knapp

Caps on Medical Malpractice undermine the Civil Justice System

Larry Knapp — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:31:24 GMT

A radiology practice and hospital were negligent in the treatment of a woman whose bowel was damaged during surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. Following 9 years of legal wrangling, a Shiawassee County jury awarded $2.9 million to Sue Apsey in her lawsuit against Owosso Memorial Hospital and Shiawassee Radiology Consultants. However, the jury's decision was completely undermined by State caps on damages. That's because the caps will likely reduce the award to $1 million less, according to attorneys familiar with the matter. Why bother to have a jury system if the decision of a jury is unreasonbly capped. In California, there has been a cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases that has not changed for 30 years! That's because the insurance industry through threats and fiction managed to get the California government to institute this archaic unfair law. No one in the legislature or anywhere else has done anything to change this sad reality. This despite that fact that most will acknowledge the inherent unfairness of the situation. Health insurers aren't driving 30 year old cars or using 30 year old computers. But, people injured by medical malpractice are subjected to a 30 year old cap. Its the worst kind of injustice.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

LeBron James Vitamin Water Commercial Denigrates Judicial Branch

Larry Knapp — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:19:50 GMT

I was talking with a friend regarding a recent incident that has been the hot topic in the Stockton local news recently. My friend is a rancher and employs migrant workers to pick and prune his orchards and vineyards. He was upset about all the attention the death of the 17-year-oldfarm worker had been receiving in the news. Hewas afraid that allthepublicity would negatively reflect on his profession and cause folks to want to change theexisting lawsmaking it more difficult andexpensive to do business. Don'tget me wrong, he was concerned aboutthecircumstances of the girl'sdeath andsympathized with those effected, howeverpart of the conversation included the impact to his profession.

I could not help pointing out the type of reaction the publichas every time astrange personal injury case is publicized. The difference is that the agricultural industry does not face the billiondollar effortcorporateamerica has put into persuading the public thatthe Judicial Branch of the government is run amok. If you do not believe that there is an insidious pervasive effort to change public opinion regarding those who are injured and bring lawsuits take a look at the LeBron James Vitamin Water commercial that has been running during the NBA playoffs?While this type of judicial humor may seem innocent enough, try picking a jury sometime with a panel full of folks who have beenconstantly bombarded with this stuff. Take it from someone who has done it before,it has an effect. I just believe that corporate ethics and responsibility should cause the folks that put this ad campaign together to pause and say: Are we really doing the country any good by casting the judicial branch of our government in such a poor light?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

Man vs. Machine

Shanley Monroe — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 02:54:33 GMT

If you’ve ever seen The Brave Little Toaster, you’re probably at least vaguely familiar with a popular theme in sci-fi movies and books. Machines come to life and run without any help from humans. Pixar films like Cars and Wall-E introduce us to friendly, loveable characters who drive, roll, and otherwise bleep their way into our hearts. Even cornerstone films like Star Wars rely on this theme to present cultural icons like C3PO and R2D2. The underlying idea to these figures is that the machines have minds of their own. In fiction and on film, the concept is endearing. In life, however, we like our machines to stay as predictable as possible, especially when we rely on them on the road.

When vehicle imperfections and malfunctions cause accidents, the company that made the car in question is liable for damages and injuries sustained in a related accident. In addition, the dealer that sold the car, inspection agencies, and part suppliers may be accountable, depending on the type of defect. This week, a product liability injury lawsuit was filed against Ford Motor Corporation, Continental Tire Corporation, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Chino Hills Ford, and Beceril Tire Shop after a Ford Expedition SUV was involved in a rollover car crash.

Griselda Bernadino was driving when the car’s left tread separated from the tire, causing the driver to lose control and the vehicle to roll over. She suffered severe spinal and brain injuries, and her five passengers were all seriously hurt.

Attorneys for the plaintiff claim that the car, which was prone to rollovers, could have been made more secure if it came with Electronic Stability Control. Because of the nature of the car, ESC should have been installed automatically and not merely offered as an option. The structure was also too weak to sustain the roof when the car rolled over, causing the vehicle to crush down on the passengers. Other defects included insufficient restraints, defective tires, insecure door latches, unsafe side windows, and lack of air bags.

All of these problems could and should have been addressed by manufacturers and part suppliers, which could have prevented the accident and injuries. If you are involved in an accident during which your vehicle malfunctions, air bags fail to deploy, restraints snap, or the car somehow fails to measure up to safety standards, then you may be able to file a lawsuit against the car company. In today’s world, we rely upon machines, like our cars, to be as safe and predictable as possible. While the Brave Little Toaster may decide to take a spontaneous trip to Mars, cars should be reliable. If yours is not, consult an attorney who specializes in auto accidents and defects to be advised of your rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shanley Monroe

Off the Record

Shanley Monroe — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:57:35 GMT

Chances are that if you watch television, you’ve seen at least one ad for an insurance company touting their folksy, people-first policies. While insurance companies are not your enemies, it is important to remember that they are businesses, and businesses must act first and foremost in their own interests, not yours. Therefore, when you have been in an accident and receive a call from an insurance adjuster or claim representative requesting that you give a statement, it is critical for you to remember that the caller's purpose is to get you to say something that may reduce amount they will have to pay to settle your claim. Be very careful about whatever statements you make, especially if they are going to be recorded.

You might wonder why a “recorded statement” is different from a regular statement. Basically, they can be used in different ways. Recorded statements are official and cannot be changed while off-the-record statements can be edited or corrected later. You should definitely give a statement containing the facts about the accident, but a company cannot make your words a matter of record without your permission. Providing helpful information to the insurance companies is different than making a standing record.

You definitely have the right to refuse to make a recorded statement if the statement is requested by a different insurance company. If an insurance company for another driver is pressuring you to make a recorded statement, you should contact a personal injury attorney who specializes in auto accidents or speak to your own insurer about it. An attorney can make sure that you provide only the necessary information to your insurer.

Once you give a recorded statement, it is impossible to change anything you have said. The record is created on the spot, with no time to prepare and often before you have seen your doctor and obtained an accurate diagnosis of your condition. If you give incomplete answers because you have forgotten some details, it is hard to include them later. It is also common that some injuries are not symptomatic until weeks or even months after an accident. If you fail to mention injuries, it looks suspicious to do so later, even if you did not know about them at first. You may unknowingly make incorrect statements that prevent you from getting the compensation you deserve. Your spontaneous statements may not be as clear as you think they are, so if your own insurer says you are obligated to make a statement, you should submit one in writing so that you can be concise and accurate. If you are careful to only share objective facts about the accident and avoid speculation about fault, your own insurance provider can use the statement to help determine the settlement. You can and must cooperate with your insurance company, but you can do this without making a recorded statement. Protect your interests by contacting an attorney if you have questions about your obligations after an accident.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shanley Monroe

Don't Pay What You Don't Owe

Shanley Monroe — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:36:06 GMT

In today’s economy, most people are very concerned that they not be reported to the credit bureau. With layoffs abounding and prices on the rise, the last thing you need is a bad credit score that will put your interest rates through the roof. You want to make sure you pay all your bills on time and keep your nose clean to ward off further financial woes. However, this responsible mentality may cause you to pay money you do not actually owe, especially if you did not expect the charges. After an accident, most people, especially the injured, face a lot of unexpected bills from doctors, mechanics, towing companies, and the like. If injured, you may feel pressured to simply pay these bills so that you do not rack up standing debts. However before writing a check, you should be conscious of what you are paying to whom, because you might not be obliged to settle every bill you receive if you are insured.

Take for example hospital bills. When health care is provided by a participating provider (a doctor or hospital who has an arrangement with your insurance company), they are prohibited from the practice of balance billing. A balance bill is exactly what it sounds like; if your insurance does not pay all your medical fees, then the physician will often send a patient the bill for the remaining balance. If you receive a balance bill, there is something you should know: you do not necessarily have to pay. In many cases, patients pay the bill since they do not know what else to do In a simple world, you get an invoice for money you owe, and you make the payment. However, when third parties, like your insurer, are added to the mix, things are more complicated legally. You should call your insurance company if you have a question about a balance bill, because most of the time, you are being billed for money you do not owe. It may actually be a violation of your contract with the insurance company for you to pay the bill.

You may wonder how this comes about. It boils down to your insurer and the doctor disagreeing over the cost of your treatment. If you are treated by a doctor who does not have a contract with your insurer, then the insurer is only obligated to pay the standard cost of your treatment, which is set by the industry and not necessarily equal to what the doctor charges. The doctor just wants to be reimbursed for his regular fee, the insurer does not want to pay an inflated rate, and neither will compromise. Your insurance company and health care provider clash, and you’re caught in the middle of it. Oftentimes you get stuck with what is known as a “balance bill”, which your insurer will not cover.

You should also be aware that some people are not allowed to send you a balance bill. For example, if you are treated by an “in network provider”, meaning a doctor or hospital that has agreed to give health care at a discounted fee, they must accept the rate offered by your insurance company. They cannot bill you. You do not have to pay anything. The logic behind this is that in an emergency situation, you do not have a choice when it comes to which doctor treats you. You have no opportunity to “shop around” and compare their fees, you don’t know whether they will work with your insurance company, etc. If you are already insured, you cannot be held accountable for the fact that your treating physician happens to charge a higher rate. Many insurance contracts also include the clause that the patient is not allowed to make private payments the insurer has already refused to make. This not only protects the insurer, but also you.

After an injury or hospital stay, contact your insurance provider about any bills you receive. Don't let your good intentions of settling debts cost you. Be careful not to pay what you do not owe.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shanley Monroe

When Hit and Run Accidents Leave You in a Lurch

Shanley Monroe — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:33:37 GMT

Most people know some variation of the parable of the Good Samaritan. A man traveling on the road is beaten and left for dead by a group of bandits. Two men pass on the road without helping him, but the third, a Samaritan, stops to help the man. He takes him into town, checks him into an inn, and leaves money to cover his expenses. When people tell the story, they usually focus on the Samaritan and the two men who passed on the road. To be sure, these characters are the most important to the parable’s message. However, one has to wonder what became of the bandits on the road. Who were they? Were they ever caught? Were they brought to justice?

In a hit and run accident, the same questions apply to the runaway driver, but if you have been victimized, your questions are more than sheer curiosity. You may wonder how your expenses will be covered, how likely it is to catch the driver, and whether you will ever be able to pursue legal action against them. California has one of the highest rates of hit and run accidents at 11%. The law requires that all drivers involved in an accident immediately stop, exchange information with the other driver, and wait to answer questions when the police arrive. However, sometimes a driver will leave you by the side of the road with no information and no idea of what to do next. There are three main reasons for a driver to flee the scene of an accident. They may be unlicensed (in many cases living in the U.S. illegally), intoxicated, or uninsured. Under any of these conditions, there are some things a victim should keep in mind during an investigation.

If the driver is in the country illegally, he or she is unlicensed. This greatly increases the odds that the vehicle is unregistered. Often an illegal or unlicensed resident will purchase a car at an auction or bank-lien sale since no license is required to buy one this way. When an unlicensed driver with an unregistered car flees the scene, he or she will likely abandon the car and disappear on foot. That way, even if the car is recovered, it is untraceable.

Intoxicated or uninsured drivers are easier to track down, however this might be of little help to the injured party. Uninsured drivers do not have the ability to pay damages, and even though California law requires drivers to carry auto insurance, and the state may choose to prosecute, you will not benefit. However, you can protect yourself by purchasing Uninsured Motorist coverage from your own insurer. This insurance can help compensate you for lost wages and pain and suffering, things that your regular insurance and health coverage will not touch. (Your regular insurance should be applied to property damage.) Uninsured Motorist insurance can also apply to your passengers in an accident and usually covers you if you were struck as a pedestrian. In California, Insurance Code 11580.2 requires all automobile insurers to include Uninsured Motorist coverage in their insurance contracts unless they get a written waiver from the insured. Waiving this type of coverage is folly, because it is probably the most important part of an automobile insurance contract. In fact, you should purchase as much Uninsured Motorist coverage as you can afford.

If a driver flees because of intoxication, the odds are better that they will be found and that they could be insured. You can help by trying to get the license plate number, a description of the car, and a description of the driver who leaves the scene without giving you their information. This can be helpful to police immediately since your chances of finding the driver are highest right after the accident. You should also contact an attorney who specializes in automobile accidents and injuries as soon as possible to be advised of how to proceed throughout the process of recovering losses and hopefully proceeding against the other driver.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shanley Monroe

Bars Serving to Laker Parade Attendees Are Immune From Lawsuits

Lawrence Knapp — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:03:49 GMT

The 1978 Legislature made imposition of civil liability for furnishing liquor to an adult expressly prohibited. No Civil Liability. “No person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage” under B. & P.C. 25602(a) “shall be civilly liable to any injured person or the estate of such person for injuries inflicted on that person as a result of intoxication by the consumer of such alcoholic beverage.” (B. & P.C. 25602(b).) The only exception is that an action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered injury or death proximately caused by the furnishing of alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor.

For example the bar who served the police officer in St. Louis County prior to a fatal crash, would be immune from liability in Califronia despite the fact that the parents are suing the restaurant because its "employees knew Miller was intoxicated" and did not stop her from driving or call her a cab, according to the lawsuit. The suit claims bar workers served Miller alcohol despite slurred speech and unsteady gait.

There was a time when the law did hold bars responsible. However, this only lasted a couple of years before the legislature shot the theory of liability down. What do you think? From a public policy perspective shouldn't businesses who serve alcohol to all obviously intoxicated Laker Parade goers, (despite whether they are minors) be held responsible by the civil justice system? Perhaps its time to reevaluate this 1978 law and change it to reflect a 21st century knowledge of drinking and driving.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Lawrence Knapp