Stockton Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Seeking Medical Treatment Immediately After an Accident is a Must

Shanley Monroe — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:37:56 GMT

Jack and Jill go up the hill in their brand new Honda Civic to get a 12 pack of Aquafina from Circle K. Just as they are pulling out of the parking lot, Hansel and Gretel, who are running from the witch with the gingerbread house in their brand new Chevy Cobalt, slam into them, causing the car to careen down the hill. You know the rest. Jack breaks his crown (ouch), and Jill comes tumbling after.

The average person believes that Jack’s fractured skull and Jill’s inevitable injuries resulted from their accident. If, for example, Jill begins to suffer from whiplash shortly after the accident, it’s fair to guess how she got it. However, when you’re dealing with insurance companies, fair guesses are not enough. Let’s say Jill tries to file a claim. She needs to provide her medical records to prove that her injuries resulted from this accident. Prior medical records may be relevant to prove that she was not already injured, and Jill definitely needs to provide evidence of her treatment after the accident.

Let’s assume, however, that Jill does not visit the doctor right after the accident. Following her wretched spill down the hill, she walks away feeling fine, so she waits to make an appointment. Her injuries don’t become symptomatic for over a month. Only then does she make an appointment. Even though Jill is certain she didn’t have any other accidents or traumatic incidents, the insurance company may refuse to consider her injuries related to the accident. Most companies will only consider treatment if it takes place within four to six weeks of the accident. Otherwise, they may claim that your injuries are unrelated to the accident itself.

The bottom line is that the more time that elapses between an accident and you seeking medical attention, the harder it is to prove that your injuries came from the accident. Even if you feel fine after an accident and do not think you are hurt, you may be well advised to pay the doctor a visit to get checked over. That way, if you develop pain later and have to return, your medical records will still show that you first sought treatment within days of the accident, not months.

Seek medical treatment immediately after an accident, and if possible, try to avoid falling down hills.

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

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

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

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

Sizzler Settlement relates to Current Tomato Scare

Howard Knapp — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:39:23 GMT

After eight years of battling insurance companies and mega corporations, the Kriefall family has finally held Sizzler responsible for their 3-year old daughter’s death. In 2000, the girl died of E-coli exposure when a piece of the watermelon she was eating came into contact with tainted meat in a Sizzler restaurant. A week later she died of several complications including kidney failure.

This case can be related to the current tomato salmonella scare taking place across the U.S. While the 13.5 million dollar settlement agreement only happened a few days ago, restaurants and supermarkets globally may have already taken note of the dangers of selling a tainted product. I have already seen these precautions in local delis and sandwich shops in the Stockton area, where tomatoes, as much as I plead, are not being put on my sandwich. This is an example of how the legal system can direct and influence how companies act in society, whether it is a Sizzler, or a local deli.

I sincerely hope that the reason supermarkets and delis are no longer serving tomatoes is because they are looking out for the consumer’s well being, not their own backs. But, either way the purpose of the civil justice system is achieved by protecting the public through encouraging safer practices.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Howard Knapp

Ritter Case Demonstrates Value of Jury

Larry Knapp — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:57:58 GMT

For those who are down on the Civil Justice System for whatever reason, consider the opinion of John Ritter's widow, Amy Yasbeck. Ms. Yasbeck's husband died under circumstances that led to medical malpractice claims. Several of the defendants, after evaluating their chances in front of a jury, chose to settle their claims. Apparently, there must have been enough merit in the claims that the settling defendants believed that choosing to face a jury would not be a wise choice. The defendants that chose to take the case before a jury were recently vindicated in as much as the jury found they were not liable.

Rather than blast the jury system that Thomas Jefferson and our other founding fathers set down for our benefit, John Ritter's widow, Amy Yasbeck was reported as saying "she disagrees with the jury's decision that two doctors were not to blame for John Ritter's death. But, she says she believes in the system and respects it." Too bad all the corporate tortfeasors in this country aren't willing to do the same. Rather, they spend billions trying to immunize themselves from it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

Civil Justice System Causes Bayer Corporation to Protect the Public

Larry Knapp — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:37:45 GMT

This is the kind of publicity the civil justice system routinely fails to garner. While it is easy to target lawyers and lawsuits as the bane of all of society's problems, actions like the recent decision by Bayer to pull its drug Trasylol from the market demonstrate how important it is to have a system of redress that causes powerful corporations to consider

the potential penalty of making money on a product that is dangerous. Here the drug at issue can cause extremely gruesome problems to those who are prescribed it:

Joseph Randone, 53, died at Stony Brook University Medical Center on Aug. 8, 2006, eight months after he entered the hospital for a heart valve replacement. Bern said Randone was given Trasylol and that during surgery he suffered kidney failure - a known complication of the drug. This led to clots in both legs, which had to be amputated shortly thereafter, he said. As a result of fluid buildup Randone's corneas became severely swollen, Bern said, and his eyes had to be sewn shut. He was on dialysis because of the kidney failure and eventually also needed a ventilator and a feeding tube.

While corporate interests will continue to attack what is frankly a very easy target, the civil justice system. Hopefully the general public will be able to wade through the muck and recognize the benefit of having this type of protection. Certainly the FDA can not be expected to police these industries alone.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

Rain Leads to More Automobile Accidents

Larry Knapp — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:47:45 GMT

I had to take my car into the shop for some maintenance work this week. On the way, as I was driving on Highway 26, I watched a pick-up truck with a rack on it (clearly a contractor) get rear-ended by a small Honda. I could see as the truck was struck how unexpectedly violent and severe the impact was to the driver. It was hard to tell whether

the driver had been injured. However, it was notable how much damage that the Honda had in comparison to the truck.

As I dropped my car off and prepared to get a rental from Enterprise, the sales representative commented about how many cars they had out. He said that due to the rain a lot of people had their cars in the body shops for repair and were renting cars as a result. I hadn't really thought about the connection rain caused automobile accidents have to the car rental business before, but apparently Enterprise does quite well when the first fall rains arrive.

I decided to do an internet search to see if a rise in rainfall correlated to any news of increase in traffic accidents. I expected I would find something and sure enough the Mother Lode has been reporting wet roads leading to accidents. No surprise there.

"If the rain keeps up, this could be a very busy afternoon for all of the units on the road," says CHP Officer Brad Schultz. "This is one of the most significant rainfalls so far, so all the roads are going to be very slick, so everyone has to slow down today and really pay attention."

The best thing to do this time of year to prevent injury is slow down and keep a respectable distance between yourself and the vehicle in front of you.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp

Food Poisoning can lead to Injury and Death

Larry Knapp — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:17:27 GMT

Conagra Foods, Inc. is pulling its pot pies from store shelves due to injuries that are hospitalizing people. While the company is not recalling its product, it is offering to reimburse the consumer for the cost of the pie. Food poisoning can lead to system wide infection and organ failure. Thus far there have been no deaths reported.

Our office once represented an elderly gentleman who was poisoned by a local restaurant in the San Joaquin Valley. As a result of the infection, his lungs reacted by building scar tissue (a phenomena known as pulmonary fibrosis) causing him to become short of breath and requiring 24 hour oxygen.

The pot pies made by ConAgra have been linked to at least 152 cases of salmonella in 31 states. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said at least 20 people have been hospitalized as part of the ongoing outbreak, but so far no deaths have been linked to the pot pies.

Conagra suggests that with proper cooking their product is safe.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Defective and Dangerous Products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Larry Knapp