Car Accidents

August 25, 2008

Mississippi Supreme Court’s Dissenting Opinion That We Almost Never Read

The Mississippi Supreme Court – an elected body that has a recent history of siding with defendants in personal injury cases – attempted to bar a dissenting opinion from Justice Oliver Diaz, Jr. in a wrongful death case. Diaz dissented with the majority’s decision to remand Mississippi Veterans Affairs Board v. Kraft.

Justice Diaz argued in his dissent of a wrongful death case that the statute of limitations for wrongful death lawsuits begins at the time of the injury, not on the date of death. “The obvious result is that a wrongful death action may expire before the decedent does,” Justice Diaz wrote.

Justice Diaz is no stranger to the crazy world of Mississippi politics. In 2005, a jury cleared Justice Diaz of all bribery charges. His ex-wife, however, pled guilty to tax evasion and was sentenced to two years’ probation. But the logic of his argument – that wrongful death claims start at the time of death – is so manifestly obvious that defense lawyers in other jurisdictions would not even make the argument.

August 20, 2008

First Bad Faith Car Accident Insurance Claims in Maryland

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Bob Zarbin and Jim MacAlister write a telling article in this month’s journal of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association about Maryland’s new bad faith law. The authors note that the avalanche of bad faith claims the insurance companies said were coming down the pike with Maryland’s new bad faith law was actually only 12 in the first quarter of the 2008 and only 12 all last year.

Similarly, on the medical malpractice front, Maryland malpractice insurers claimed the sky was falling one minute and the next they are declaring $74 million profit to their doctor shareholders and lowering malpractice insurance rates. The legislative process requires that the viewpoints of all stakeholders. But can we at least make sure we put the proper discounted value on “the sky is falling” on the next go around? I’m hoping the next go around includes a revised bad faith law with more teeth than mere costs and expenses.

In the same issue, Kevin Goldberg, who is with Goldberg, Finnegan & Mester in Silver Spring, Maryland, writes a great article laying out a great checklist of avenues to explore when you have a catastrophic accident and what appears to be limited coverage.

August 11, 2008

Rotator Cuff Injury Case Value | Personal Injury Lawyers

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

A Jury Verdict Research study reports that rotator cuff injuries reached a 7-year high in 2006 with a compensatory award median of $72,667. This is almost 50% higher than previously reported settlements and verdicts in rotator cuff injury cases.

Get sample settlements and verdicts in rotator cuff injury cases

Our lawyers have never understood while the national data in these cases was so low. Washington D.C. rotator cuff injuries have averaged well over $100,000 for rotator cuff settlements and verdicts, so we have never understood why the national average was as low as it has been. In any event, for whatever reason, rotator cuff verdicts are on the rise.

July 14, 2008

United Auto in Florida: The Soap Opera Continues

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

United Automobile Insurance lawyer Charles Grimsley has agreed to a public reprimand for saying Miami-Dade judges “are being paid off” by plaintiffs’ car accident lawyers.

Grimsley was clearly agitated by the success of plaintiffs’ accident lawyers in small claims personal injury protection cases in Florida. In frustration, he said, “I think the judges are being paid off, but I can’t prove that.”

I think but I cannot prove. I think United Automobile Insurance is on the wrong side of justice in Florida because they are essentially taking premiums but fighting payout of too many valid claims under a scorched earth policy with its own insured. But I can’t see anything wrong with “I think but I cannot prove.” If we can only talk about what we can prove as opposed to what we suspect, the First Amendment is worth nothing. And lawyers are entitled to their First Amendment rights just like anyone else.

July 11, 2008

Lawyer Referring Clients to Doctors in Car Accident Cases

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

One dilemma we often face is dealing with a client in car accident cases is that they would like us to refer them to a health care provider. The best path is always to have client direct their own medical care. But in the real world, you cannot always do this. If you do refer a client to a doctor, here are few ideas to limit the damage of the classic cross-examination question: “You lawyer referred you to this doctor, didn’t he?”

First, file a motion in limine requesting that evidence of the attorney’s recommendation be excluded as protected by the attorney-client privilege. In a Florida personal injury car accident case, Burt v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 603 So.2d 125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992), a Florida Court of Appeal was asked to decide if the following questions were permissible from the defendant’s accident lawyer: (1) when did they obtain an accident lawyer, and (2) did their lawyer refer them to a particular doctor? The Florida court ruled that the former question did not violate the attorney-client privilege but the second question, which sought to uncover confidential conversations between the accident lawyer and the client, was a violation of the lawyer-client privilege. Cite this case, argue that a rule requiring disclosure of such information is a significant incursion into the province of the attorney-client privilege, and take your best shot.

If your motion is denied, get it out up front in the opening the reasons why the client took a lawyer referral. What “excuse” do you give? Ask the client. Generally speaking, injured clients have a good reason why they wanted to defer to their counsel. They may not like or even have a primary care doctor, the client’s doctor’s office may be far away, or they may struggle to get an immediate appointment. In closing argument, tell them that the defense lawyer is trying to distract you from the real issues: the doctor is qualified to treat the patient and the patient is injured.

March 24, 2008

Allstate v. Texas Personal Injury Lawyers and Chiropractors

by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.

Jeremy Roebuck of The Monitor in South Texas writes an interesting article about, unlike Friday’s blog post, Allstate going on the offensive against abuses in the personal injury system.

In this case, Allstate has brought a fraud lawsuit against a group of Rio Grande Valley chiropractic clinics and their lawyers, claiming that they improperly recruited personal injury victims, suggested patients undergo unnecessary treatments, and then persuaded their patients to file personal injury lawsuits against Allstate.

Allstate alleges the clinics, Chiropractic Strategies, has telemarketers that encourage people to visit their clinics for a free evaluation. Once there, Allstate claims they were are diagnosed with injuries they did not have and overtreated for the injuries they did have. The article does not say but I’m assuming they are calling people who have been in auto accidents based on looking at police reports or some other means to find injury victims.