Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

Our office has been contacted on numerous occasions by individuals seeking restitution for the loss of a life of a loved one due to a house fire. In some cases the house fire may be caused by a malfunctioning device. In other cases the fire’s consequences may have been escaped had a smoke detector been functioning properly. In other cases, an electrical water heater may explode or there may be problems with a gas line or some other component of the house itself which causes the fire. While all cases are different, whenever a wrongful death results from a house fire, the tragedy can be compounded if there is not a proper investigation following the fire itself.
The causes of some fires can never be determined many times due to the blaze itself. The fire consumes all the evidence and it is impossible to determine the actual cause or origin of the fire. In other cases, however, if there is enough remaining evidence after the fire for forensic examination, a cause, in fact, can be determined. What is vital in all of these cases is that there be a scene investigation conducted by the local Fire Marshall’s Office and that counsel for the survivors of those killed in the fire be retained to review their work and also to conduct an independent examination of the site. The sooner one works on such a case to preserve all available evidence, the better the opportunity for uncovering evidence which will support a viable claim, whether it be a product liability claim, claim against a negligent contractor or otherwise. In any case in which a wrongful death occurs as a result a house or trailer fire, family members may wish to consult counsel on behalf of the survivors if for no other reason than to make sure that an adequate on-site investigation is conducted either by the authorities or by private investigators. Sometimes the failure to act in an expeditious manner can result in crucial evidence being overlooked and/or in crucial evidence being destroyed. A failure to preserve evidence is the biggest reason why claims are unsuccessful when house fires are involved, thus it is imperative that an investigation be conducted as soon as is possible under the circumstances.

We have been contacted many times concerning tort claims against the U. S. Postal Service. Typically these involve personal injury claims arising out of motor vehicle collisions where a postal truck of some kind is involved. Sometimes it is the mail handler delivering the mail and sometimes it is a large tractor-trailer delivering mail between districts. In either circumstance, where one sustains an injury as a result of the negligent acts of a Postal Service employee, it is necessary that the claimant file a Standard Form 95 with the proper representatives of the Postal Service as a pre-condition to any suit that might later be brought. The reason is because all claims against the Postal Service are governed by the terms and procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which are mandatory and jurisdictional. In short, if one does not comply with the terms of the Federal Torts Claim Act, the claim will be essentially forfeited.
39 C.F.R. part 912 provides that a claim should be submitted pre-suit to the Post Office where the accident occurred an/or to the Postal Service District Office where the accident occurred and also to the Chief Counsel National Tort Center in St. Louis, Missouri. 39 C.F.R. part 912 describes the information that must be included in the claim presentation, which again, must be filed pre-suit. Once the claim is filed with the Postal Service Tort Claims Division, then in that event, six months must elapse before suit can be filed. If the claim is denied and/or not ruled upon within six months, the claimant may file suit in Federal District Court but may only name the United States of America as the defendant.
Anyone who suffers an injury at the hands of a negligent Postal Service employee, whether by way of a motor vehicle accident or otherwise, should confer with counsel who has experience with the Federal Tort Claims Act. Again, there are jurisdictional pre-suit filing requirements that must be followed otherwise the claim can be lost due to a failure to follow the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

We read today a newspaper article out of an Indianapolis paper where two teenagers were killed following a police chase for a minor traffic infraction. Ironically, the police department in question had recently decided to review its own internal policies concerning high speed police chases. The current policy under review by the department would not have allowed the chase, which resulted in the death of the two teenagers. It bears repeating that many times the people that are killed in these chases are not the ones fleeing but rather innocent motorists who get caught up in the chase through no fault of their own. Literally, they are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time, doing nothing and yet they die. The question is whether any deaths (including a fleeing suspect’s) are worth the price to attempt to capture someone who is wanted for a traffic infraction.

Most policies today, which are enlightened, are those which prohibit unfettered police chases absent an imminent danger to the public. If a murder or rapist is fleeing, then they need to be captured because they are an imminent danger to the public. The same cannot be said for someone who is violating a traffic law. As many teenagers go joy riding in stolen cars, the question is whether we should chase them at 100 miles per hour or let them go and capture them using other police techniques. Do we need to immediately apprehend them such that we are willing to endanger the entire public? Are we willing to have the deaths of innocent motorists caused by the attempted apprehension of a joy riding teenager? These are the debates ongoing throughout the country. Fortunately, there is a heightened public awareness that police chases should be restricted to the more dangerous suspects who need to be immediately apprehended. Unless the suspect needs to be immediately apprehended (such as a violent felon), the police should let non-dangerous suspects go and try to capture them later, under safer circumstances.

For an interesting read on this debate in the Indianapolis community please go to the attached link and read the entire article:

It is well known that large tractor-trailer trucks are very difficult to stop even when being operated prudently. Because of the weights on large tractor-trailers, if a tractor-trailer needs to suddenly stop for whatever reason, it takes much longer for the truck to stop than it would for the ordinary passenger vehicle. It is for this reason that regulations exist requiring trucks to slow down in inclement weather. Wet roads result in greater stopping distances for large tractor-trailer vehicles and thus, if it is raining, a prudent truck driver should slow his truck down one-third (1/3) of the normal speed. This is required by regulation and is required by common sense and safety considerations for the motoring public. Regrettably, far too often, truck drivers because of the need to deliver their loads and due to the economic pressures upon them, fail to slow down during inclement weather with the predictable result that accidents, which otherwise could have been avoided, occur with greater frequency.
All drivers regardless of whether they are operating passenger vehicles or tractor-trailer rigs need to slow down in inclement weather, whether it be wet weather, snowy weather or a mixture of sleet and rain. The fact is that such conditions are known to be dangerous to all drivers. Commercial drivers having a special license and being professionally employed to driver large trucks, which are harder to stop, have an extra special duty of care under such circumstances. Regrettably, we have seen first hand here at our firm far too many cases where innocent third parties are seriously injured or killed when truck drivers fail to slow down during inclement weather thus, causing significant carnage on the road when they plow into other cars impacted by their negligence. There is a reason we see signs that say “Speed Kills.” Speed during inclement weather kills more often thus, the need to slow down and the rationale for the regulations requiring a reduction in speed by one-third (1/3) of that typically in place.

In serious injury cases, usually arising from tractor-trailer collisions or automobile accidents, it is not uncommon to see clients with serious back injuries which create a host of physical and mental problems for the innocent victim. If someone is rear-ended by a tractor-trailer, as an example, and suffers a significant back injury requiring a fusion or other surgical procedure, it is not uncommon at all for such a client to develop leg problems, hip problems and other associated maladies. The mental stress and emotional damage caused by permanent and intractable pain is part of the injury as well. In the unfortunate cases where clients lose their legs or suffer traumatic amputations, the injury to the leg can result in an injury to the back and the hips. In short, a vicious cycle is involved in these cases which is why it is necessary that the injured claimant have the best possible medical assistance possible.
Many times it is difficult for the medical community to establish the exact cause of pain for a particular client. Sometimes it is a herniated disc in the back, sometimes it is nerve root impingement, sometimes it is generalized nerve damage and sometimes it is simply a chronic pain syndrom due to the trauma to the spinal column. As stated, typically, the injured individual with the bad back will have problems with their leg and hips which, of course, affects all of their daily activities, not to mention their work, if they are still able to work. For these reasons, it is vital that the injured individual receive medical treatment from a Board certified orthopaedist, orthopaedic surgeon, neurologist or neurosurgeon. Depending upon the facts of the case, the mechanism of injury, the location of the injury or otherwise, one or more of these specialists may be involved as well as physical therapists. Treatment may begin with physical therapy and epidural steroid injections, but in many cases ends in surgery, particularly for the more serious back injuries.
Unless one suffers from a significant back injury, it is hard for others to truly appreciate just how disabling such injuries can be. In personal injury cases involving serious back injuries it is sometimes wise to obtain a Function Capacity Evaluation to demonstrate objectively just how the injury affects the injured individuals ability to function at performing daily tasks, whether it be stooping, lifting, bending or otherwise. Such cases are very sad, typically, because they do involve a significant impact on the individual’s lifestyle and can affect not only their work, their marriage, their family, but their overall quality of life. Sadly, such injuries oftentimes are permanent and the impact of an accident can affect someone for the rest of their natural lives, which is why it is necessary to work these cases up very carefully with the long term interest of the client being closely monitored throughout the recovery process.

As we have written before, it is becoming increasingly necessary that plaintiff’s counsel be prepared to attack the veracity and credibility of so-called “independent” experts in personal injury cases. Insurance companies and defense law firms routinely retain medical “experts” to testify that plaintiffs are not injured at all or have only suffered minor injuries. They do this by examining diagnostic tests and/or by offering testimony that the test results do not substantiate a traumatic injury. Such testimony can be extremely misleading because oftentimes a clinical diagnosis made by a treating physician is much more reliable than a so-called independent review by someone who has never seen the plaintiff much less examined them. Nonetheless, such testimony is dangerous and can often be effective if the witness offering the testimony has a good medical pedigree, as they often do, and presents a good appearance before the jury. This makes the cynical use of so-called experts extremely dangerous because by paying a fee for the so-called “independent” opinion, the jury can be mislead and an innocent victim of a negligent act can be victimized again and denied the right to fair and reasonable compensation for their injuries.
“Independent” experts oftentimes testify in back injury cases as an example of this problem. They testify that an examination of radiological films proves to them that the “back injured” claimant was not injured at all. Many experts will testify that herniated discs in a back cannot be caused by trauma or that trauma did not cause the injury complained of, etc. Such testimony is tantamount to junk science and is completely unreliable but the problem is that many jurors do not recognize this. Jurors receive sworn testimony and based on their lack of medical training actually oftentimes believe that the so-called “independent expert” is, in fact, independent when nothing could further from the truth. Thus, to be effective in representing a personal injury claimant with a bad back or neck case, the best way to go about doing so is to attack the so-called independence of the expert. Many of these witnesses receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation each year from the insurance industry because they know where there bread is buttered and they know what is expected of them, which is to testify that the claimant is not injured and/or that they are malingering. This cynical approach to dispensing justice in a personal injury context is disheartening, frustrating and at times exasperating but, nonetheless, it is part and parcel of the landscape in our society. All one can do is fight against it and hope that fair and impartial jurors will see through such cynicism and will disregard the testimony of junk science experts who, for their own secondary gain, perniciously seek to influence their verdicts.

Increasingly we are seeing a trend that started many years ago but continues today. This involves the use of so-called “independent” experts to provide testimony in personal injury cases to the effect that the claimant has suffered no injury at all or, if any injury, only a minor one. Insurance companies employ so-called “independent” medical examiners to review radiology films, many times, so that a radiologist can testify that based upon an examination of the film, there is no evidence of trauma seen, thus the plaintiff could not have been injured. Of course, a radiologist cannot see damaged nerve endings or herniated discs on an x-ray film but this does not stop these so-called “independent” experts from providing junk science medical testimony for the jury’s consumption.

This trend is extremely troubling and has been decried by our courts in the past. In a well reasoned opinion written by the Georgia Court of Appeals over twelve (12) years ago, Justice Blackburn wrote “I write separately to point out a systematic problem in the general use of “independent” experts in the litigation process. This problem, while not limited thereto, is greatest where insurance companies use “independent” medical expert opinions to deny or limit payment of claims. The inherent weakness of this process is that the insurance company which controls the flow of business to “independent” medical services providers has a financial interest in the negative finding of such provider…”.

Insurance companies have a huge financial interest in making sure that cliams are not paid. One way to do this is to hire a so-called “independent” experts. It is disheartening to see a medical doctor testify for money paid that someone is not injured when the doctor, of course, has no way of knowing whether such is the case. Insurance companies typically get what they pay for which is a medical opinion that the claimant is either not injured at all or shows no objective evidence of injury based upon an examination of diagnostic films or other tests. Such testimony is extremely dangerous because it appeals to the cynicism of jurors who may believe that someone seeking money is simply out for secondary gain and is not legitimately injured. While there are fraud claims and while there are claims of embellishment and exaggeration, in many legitimate claims, nonetheless, these so-called “independent” experts are providing testimony that serves no other purpose but to deny justice to those who have been legitimately injured and are in need of adequate and just compensation for their injuries.

We read this past week an article in the paper about the increasing number of cyclists hit by automobiles under a variety of different circumstances typically involving gross negligence by the driver. In one reported case, the driver was on her cell phone and hit the cyclist from the rear while speeding. In another case, a drunk driver ran over a cyclist. In another reported case, a speeding motorist hit the cyclist on the shoulder of the road, killing him.

During the summer, of course, more and more cyclists are using the good weather as an excuse to get out and get some exercise. There is now a new law in Georgia requiring motorists to give 3 feet of right-of-way when passing cyclists. While this is a move in the right direction it will not prevent by itself the more tragic accidents like the ones recently reported in the newspaper.

Anyone who rides a bicycle has to understand they are at risk from being hit from behind by negligent drivers. People drink and drive and unfortunately people are using their cell phones, texting and otherwise engaging in a variety of negligent acts while driving. It is best to ride where it is safe to do so on designated bicycle paths. Obviously, if someone wants to operate a bicycle in an urban area, safety is the watch word. Helmets should be worn at all times.

We have written before about the importance of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. This past week we resolved a case for a client that is a classic demonstration of why it is so very important that uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage be purchased at the time one acquires liability insurance coverage for their own vehicle.

In the case we mentioned, a young lady was hit by a driver who was clearly negligent. Unfortunately, the driver of the vehicle that injured our client had only the minimum limits of liability insurance, that being $25,000.00 in bodily injury coverage. The driver also was unemployed and lived in a trailer and had no assets to satisfy a judgment over and above the available liability insurance coverage. Our client’s injuries were far in excess of available coverage and, indeed, her medical bills were three times the amount of available liability insurance.

Fortunately for our client, she was driving her parents’ vehicle which had $100,000.00 underinsured motorist coverage. She also had $50,000.00 in underinsured motorist coverage for her own vehicle. Because both policies were stackable, there was total available coverage of $175,000.00. Even with this available coverage, the client was still underinsured because her overall damages (medical bills, lost wages, permanent disability and pain and suffering, past and future) were greater than the available coverage. However, the point to be made is that if she had not had the benefit of underinsured or uninsured motorist coverage, she would have been limited in her recovery to $25,000.00, which would have compounded her personal tragedy.

For any innocent victim of a car accident where an at fault driver runs a stop sign, crosses the centerline or otherwise seriously injuries an innocent motorist, one of the essential ingredients of professional legal services for the victim is personal interaction between the victim and their attorney. In a serious case the innocent victim/client will need an attorney. Due to mass marketing, however, in many cases, clients may go to law firms where most of their interaction is not with attorneys but with lower level staff people.

In any serious case, it is important that a client interact with their attorney as their case develops. Personal interaction with an attorney on a one-on-one basis is imperative because the attorney needs to stay abreast of what is happening to the client, particularly with respect to their injuries and their medical situation. As a client is recovering from injuries the attorney needs to be kept abreast of what is happening in the client’s life, how the medical injuries are affecting their lost wage situation and how their injuries are overall affecting their life overall. Without out one-on-one interaction between the client and the attorney, the professional component of the attorney/client privilege is lost and is delegated to lower staff members who are not always able to appreciate the importance of some matters that could have far reaching legal consequences.

Every case is different. Some are more complex than others and some involve unique legal questions that can only be resolved by attorneys who are very experienced in the personal injury field. Clients should insist that they have the right to speak to their attorney concerning the status of their case. This is an essential ingredient of any professional relationship between an attorney and a client in a personal injury case.