Raleigh Personal Injury Lawyer

BANISHED SHOPPER AND CAN SUE MALL

Brent Adams — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:41:09 GMT

A North Carolina Superior Court judge has ruled that a shopper could sue a Greensboro, North Carolina mall for banishing him for one year after he was accused of concealing dolls at a tenant's department store.

The case rose out of an incident in which a 64-year-old retired school teacher was shopping on the day after Christmas with his wife with the intent to buy collector's item dolls.

The store did not provide shopping carts or bags so the shopper put 11 dolls into his own plastic bag to carry to the cash register.

The shopper was stopped and detained by store security.

Greensboro police charged the shopper with concealing merchandise.

A mall security worker asked him to sign a document captioned "Notice to Depart and Forbid Entry." This document contained a clause stating that he could appeal the banishment order by making a request to the mall's general manager.

Repeated requests by the shopper's lawyer for information about the appeal procedure was ignored. Further, the management of the mall failed to even speak with the shopper's lawyer.

The district attorney dropped the criminal charge in January of 2007 and a district judge expunged the charge from the shopper's record.

The shopper then sued the mall and claimed that the mall engaged in "unlawful, negligent, grossly negligent and willful unwarranted misconduct" when it imposed the one-year ban and failed to respond to the shopper's request to repeal the ban.

The shopper's lawyer argued that there is an unwritten contract between the shopping center and the general public by which the shopping center invites the public in to spend money. The claim was that the mall violated that contract when they banished the shopper from 180 stores, several acres and the United States Post Office, without just cause.

The mall moved to dismiss the claim. On March 11, 2008 Superior Court Judge John H. Holshouser, Jr. denied the motion thereby allowing the case to proceed to trial.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Another Tort Reform Phony Cashes In

Brent Adams — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:07:59 GMT

One of the more prominent tort reform advocates over the years has been Judge Robert H. Bork.

Judge Bork serviced as solicitor general and is acting Attorney General in the 1970s. He was later a federal appeals judge in Washington and was a strong contender for the United States Supreme Court. However, in 1987 the Senate failed to confirm his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Judge Bork has never been a friend of consumers especially those who have been victims of corporate abuse or wrongdoing.

Judge Bork recently settled his own million dollar slip and fall lawsuit.

Although the good judge was an outspoken proponent of tort reform which seeks to limit the rights of ordinary citizens to fair compensation, he did not hesitate to stick out his hand and cash in on the civil justice system he so strongly opposes.

In his complaint Judge Bork asked for punitive damages for the failure of the Yale Club to provide appropriate hand rails. In North Carolina such a complaint would barely get to the jury on the allegations of negligence. The punitive damages claim would be thrown out in a "New York minute". Surely, Judge Bork and his "silk stocking" lawyers knew that he did not have a legitimate punitive damages claim.

Could it be that Judge Bork filed a uhummm... frivolous lawsuit ?

Judge Bork's lawsuit against the Yale Club arose after he fell stepping onto the platform to speak. The judge said that the Yale Club was negligent for not having stairs or a handrail leading up to the platform. He claimed that he suffered "excruciating pain" after he fell backwards as he tried to climb out of the dais and struck his left leg on the side of the dais and his head on a heat register. He underwent surgery and physical therapy and claims that he was left with a limp and is required to use a cane.

In defense of the lawsuit, the Yale Club said that Judge Bork was himself negligent because he failed to recognize the potential risk which the club said were "open, obvious and apparent."

In North Carolina, because of our draconian contributory negligence rule, if Judge Bork was himself negligent, his case would be thrown out.

Some of Judge Bork's ideological cohorts would say that Judge Bork did file a "frivolous lawsuit."

Judge Bork has joined a long list of tort reform phonies including the current President Bush who condemn are civil justice system, but do not hesitate to use the system for their own self-interest.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

North Carolina Jury Returns Low Verdict For Neck Injury

Brent Adams — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:22:44 GMT

A Dobson County jury returned a verdict of $45,000.00 in favor of a victim of a rear-end collision who sustained a neck injury.

As a result of neck injury which was caused by the collision the claimant's doctors recommended a cervical fusion of the neck. The surgical fusion would have involved joining together the C5-C6 cervical discs so that there would be no movement between the two discs. Both an orthopedic spine specialist and a neurosurgeon recommended this surgery.

The claimant declined to have surgery and also refused to have epidural injections because of her fear of needles.

The defendant's fault in causing the collision was clear.

The insurance company defended the case however based upon its contention that the high-speed rear-end collision did not cause the injury to the claimant's neck.

Of course, this is a ridiculous position for the insurance company to take. However, it is the usual practice of insurance companies to deny that a wreck victim is hurt as badly as the doctors say. Sometimes, insurance companies deny that the claimant is hurt at all.

In cases involving injuries to the neck and back the insurance companies almost always claim that the victim has a pre-existing degenerative disc disease. Virtually everyone above 30 has degenerative disc disease. It is not a horrible unusual debilitating disease; instead it is simply a part of the aging process wherein the bones in the back wear down to a certain extent. This condition is worse in some people than in others.

However, degenerative disc disease usually does not result in any pain or discomfort or disability. Almost everyone has this condition but most people do not realize it. The condition only becomes symptomatic (that is, it results in pain and discomfort) when there has been a traumatic event such as a motor vehicle collision.

In this case however, the impact of the collision caused spondylosis as well as the aggravation of the pre-existing degenerative disc disease. Prior to this collision, the claimant's degenerative disc disease did not cause any pain or discomfort and was totally asymptomatic (no symptoms).

Nevertheless, the defendant attempted to make a big issue of the pre-existing condition.

Apparently, this ploy on the part of the insurance company worked because the verdict was extremely low for this type of injury.

The jury verdict included $9,000.00 for pain and suffering, $6,000.00 for past medical expenses and $30,000.00 for future medical expenses.

The testimony was that the cost of the surgery would be $30,000.00.

The results in this case is very typical and it shows how effective it is for insurance companies to use a normal condition such as a pre-existing degenerative disc disease, to deny deserving claimants the full amount of benefits to which they are entitled.

It is an unfortunate that jurors are many times swayed by this specious argument.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

When You Are Disabled, Be Careful What You Say To The Insurance Claims Handler

Brent Adams — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:31:11 GMT

Eugene Andersons the dean of the claimant's disability insurance bar.

For many years, Mr. Anderson has fought diligently for the injured person and has won many battles on behalf of his clients against disability insurance companies who wrongfully deny benefits to their insureds.

In a recent article published for the insurance law section of the American Association for Justice, Mr. Anderson warned against the bias written into claims notes of conversations with disability insurance claimants. These claim notes are written to record conversations that disability insurance claims handlers have with disabled policy holders.

Mr. Anderson points out that while these notes may not always be totally false, they only tell half truths and are heavily slanted in the insurance company's favor by creating the false impression that the health condition of the disabled insured is much improved and that his disability has ended.

These claim notes, unfortunately, become part of the claims file which the courts construe as business records, giving them a sort of sacrosanct status.

The danger is that these notes may be viewed as the gospel truth by the court in determining whether a claimant is disabled.

That is why Mr. Anderson cautions the disabled insurer to be careful what they say to the claims handler and how their statements are phrased.

As an example, assume the policy holder tells the claims examiner that she has severe headaches in the morning. She says that she feels better once she gets up and about. The insurance company claims notes will reflect merely that the claimant feels better once she gets up and gets going in the morning. Thus, what appears on the claims notes for the court to see contain only half truths.

The woman may claim that she does not feel "up to" going to the doctor again. This will likely be recorded in the claims notes as "does not plan to seek further medical treatment." Her remark that she is too tired to go to the doctor becomes: "tired of going to the doctor." This statement again distorts the import and true meaning of the claimant's statements.

Mr. Anderson points out that insurance company claims personnel write notes that misconstrue the claimant's complaints and minimize their severity. Although the claims handler's notes in the claim files are not false, strictly speaking, they fail to give an accurate and complete picture of the claimant's health and well being. The notes accentuate the positive, but the positive is only half the truth.

Mr. Anderson notes that this accentuating the positive and downplaying or eliminating the negative may go on for a long time and in a variety of settings.

Insurance claim handler's conversations with the claimant's employer may skip over the negative in a way that portrays a disgruntled employee who should be busy at work, rather than at home, with complaints that others may perceive as minor aches and pains.

In later discussions with the claimant, the claims examiner reminds her of her earlier statements: "Didn't you tell us three months ago that you felt better in the morning?" The claimant, of course, does not recall this conversation that may have occurred a year earlier but responds "Yes." She does not challenge the previous conversation because she took no notes and does not remember. The claims examiner on the other hand, has notes which will be a prominent part of the court's file. Since the claims notes accentuate the positive and eliminated the negative that is all that the file now reflects.

This long series of conversations with the claims examiner in which he records only the positive and most favorable aspects of the claimant's health amounts to, in Mr. Anderson's word: "a long term cross-examination."

Eventually the claimant gives up and sues.

The insurance company then defends its denial of the claim on the basis of their claims record which was carefully crafted over a long period of time by a biased and nimble claims handler who has purposely distorted the record.

Before suit is even filed, the deck has been unfairly stacked against the claimant.

You should, therefore, be extremely careful what you say to the claims handler and realize that it is his job to build a claims file which will support a denial of your claim.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

You Are Not In Good Hands With Allstate

Brent Adams — Sun, 18 May 2008 09:14:16 GMT

We have all heard the Allstate Insurance Company slogan which is: "You are in good hands with Allstate".

Those of us who fight Allstate Insurance Company on a regular basis and our clients who seek adequate awards from Allstate Insurance Company know that an experience with Allstate Insurance Company is anything but "good".

Throughout an 18-month investigation into minor impact-soft-Tissue injury collisions CNN found that if a person were injured in a minor accident, chances were high that Allstate would "challenge your medical claim, offering you barely a fraction of your expenses."

One of Allstate's former lawyers admitted that Allstate's strategy is to make fighting the company "so expensive and so time-consuming that lawyers would start refusing to help clients."

During the early '90s Allstate Insurance Company hired management consultant giant McKinsey & Co. to help Allstate increase its profits.

McKinsey & Co. came up with a scheme that significantly increased Allstate's profits by means of shortchanging claimants who sought inadequate recovery from injuries sustained in minor motor vehicle collisions.

At the direction of McKinsey & Co. Allstate installed a new claims handling system called Claims Core Process Design (CCPD). This system was put into place in 1995.

The major emphasis of CCPD was to pay less on claims by using rigid standardized methods such as Fast Track, Colossus, minor impact-soft tissue referrals and special investigative unit referrals and by discouraging legal representation.

By the use of Colossus, Allstate took away from the in-the-field claims adjusters the discretion to set the value of a claim. I instead, the facts arising out of the claim were fed into a computer program named Colossus. Colossus spit out the value of the claim in a cookbook fashion. This is the amount that Allstate stuck to in its negotiations with injured claimants.

Because litigation is expensive, Allstate knew that by making low ball offers to the claimants chances were good that these beaten down claimants would settle their claim for a small fraction of its true value. These hard-pressed claimants simply did not have the wherewithal and stamina to fight their claims in court.

Unfortunately, Allstate tactics of discouraging attorneys to help injured victims in these low impact cases proved to be very profitable. Sadly, many lawyers who were willing to take minor impact cases before the new McKinsey procedures were instituted now refuse to help these injured parties because Allstate made it too expensive for these lawyers to handle the cases. These lawyers found that the chances of their making any profit on these cases were so slim that they refused to handle the cases.

Fortunately, there are dedicated plaintiffs lawyers who are willing to take these cases.

However, these scorch-the-earth defense tactics employed by not only Allstate Insurance Company but State Farm, Nationwide and many other insurance companies, have taken their toll on the unfortunate personal injury victims who now find it even more difficult to obtain an adequate recovery for their injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Two qualifications your personal injury lawyer should have

Brent Adams — Thu, 15 May 2008 01:57:49 GMT

It is not easy to find a good personal injury lawyer. Certainly there are a lot of lawyers out there. It seems as though there is a lawyer under every rock.

However, if you are looking for a personal injury lawyer, you need to be sure that you have a good one.

It is important to understand that not all lawyers who claim to be personal injury lawyers are the same. Some are very good, others are not.

How do you tell the difference?

Among the most important qualifications of a good trial lawyer is experience. It is important that you have a lawyer who has actually tried a good number of personal injury lawsuits.

It is always better to settle your case without going to court. However, in order to get a good settlement, it is necessary for the insurance company to know that you are represented by a lawyer who is ready, willing and able to file your lawsuit and try your case before a jury if necessary.

There is a truism recognized by experienced personal injury lawyers that if you want to obtain a good settlement, it is necessary to prepare the case for trial. In the vast majority of the time, if a case is prepared for trial, if the claimant's lawyer is ready to go to trial, then the insurance company will recognize that fact and will offer a good settlement.

There are law firms who operate what is commonly known as "settlement mills". These law firms take in a large volume of cases and, in order to avoid going to court, settle their client's cases for less than fair value. Insurance companies know who these "settlement mill" lawyers are and lower the evaluations of their cases accordingly.

If you are represented by one of these lawyers, you can expect that your settlement will, on average, be less than you would expect from a lawyer who tries personal injury cases on a regular basis.

A second important attribute of a good personal injury lawyer is that he or she actually cares about you and your case. President Theodore Roosevelt once said that you should not care how much a person knows until you first know how much they care. This caution is especially true for your selection of a personal injury lawyer.

You need a lawyer who takes a personal interest in your case, gives you individualized custom service and cares more about your welfare than the fee they may obtain or how much work they have to do in order to achieve your goals.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

When You Are Injured In A Motor Vehicle Collision, You Should Always File Under Your Health And Hospitalization Insurance Policies

Brent Adams — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:59:10 GMT

When we first interview clients who have been involved in motor vehicle collisions, they are sometimes unsure of whether they should file under their health and hospital insurance policies in order to pay their medical and hospital bills. The attitude of some clients is that "why should my insurance company pay these bills when this wreck was the fault of the careless driver."

Our advice to all of our clients is to always file claims under all available hospital and health insurance policies to help pay the medical expenses that are incurred as a result of the collision caused by the careless driver.

The automobile liability insurance company is not entitled to the benefit of health and hospitalization insurance that you or your employer paid for. This is a benefit that belongs to you and you should make a claim for it.

This means that you can recover from your health and hospitalization insurance policies and also recover from the liability insurance policy that covers the careless driver. Although it is quite possible in many cases that there will be a double recovery, that is that you will be paid twice for each medical bill, that is only fair to you because you or your employer have paid the premiums for this insurance.

The negligent party's insurance company is not entitled to a credit or offset for the money that your health insurance company pays you or your medical providers. That means that the negligent party's insurance company has to pay the full value of the claim without any reduction for any sums that you may have recovered from your insurance company.

Medical providers are sometimes reluctant to file a claim under your health insurance policies when they know that your injuries resulted from a motor vehicle collision and that you have a claim against the careless driver's insurance company. The primary reason for this reluctance is that in most cases, these insurance policies will not pay the full amount of the doctor's bill and your doctor or other health care provider is not allowed to charge you for any amounts that your insurance company does not pay. Under the agreement with your insurance company, the doctors, hospitals and other care providers must accept whatever your insurance company pays as full payment of their claim even though the insurance company will not pay the full amount of the bill.

Your health care provider would much rather recover their full bill from the proceeds of your claim against the careless driver's insurance company. However, in most cases, the insurance company will not allow the health care provider to collect from any source more than the insurance company allows for the doctor's claim.

The good news for you is that your health insurance company will satisfy completely all of your medical expenses and, in addition, you can recover the full amount of your medical bills plus the other elements of damage from the negligent party's insurance company.

If your health care provider will not allow you to file a claim under your insurance policy, you should contact your lawyer who can immediately resolve this issue with your health care provider and the insurance company.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Always Call A Law Enforcement Officer At The Scene Of The Collision

Brent Adams — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:15:16 GMT

One of the first things that should be done immediately after a motor vehicle collision is to call a law enforcement officer to investigate. If the injured victim is able and has a cell phone, he or she should make the 911 call from the car.

If there is no cell phone in the car the injured victim should ask someone to make the phone call from another person's cell phone or the nearest available land phone as near as possible to the scene of the collision.

Sometimes the careless driver asks the injured victim not to call a law enforcement officer and even offers to pay cash to the injured victim on the spot in exchange for the promise not to call police. It is always a big mistake to comply with such a request.

There is usually a reason why the careless driver does not want a law enforcement officer to investigate. That reason is usually a bad omen for the injured victim. The careless driver may have a criminal record, may not have a driver's license or may be lying about his or her identity.

Law enforcement officers are highly trained and will be able to determine if the driver is falsifying their true identity.

One of the biggest advantages of having a law enforcement officer investigate the scene of the collision is that the officer will take measurements, draw a diagram, and prepare a complete accident report. These accident reports are very useful for the injured victim and their lawyer. This accident report will not only have a diagram which shows how the collision occurred but will also have a narrative account of the accident as well as accurate contact information concerning the careless driver and their insurance company.

If medical assistance is required, the law enforcement officer will know how to call rescue personnel to the scene as quickly as possible.

The law enforcement office will make useful estimates of the speed of the collision, the point of impact and other facts that will help the injured victim prove its case against the careless drive.

Law enforcement officers play a key role in protecting the victim of a careless driver. It is always a mistake not to seek out the assistance of these trained professionals.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

Mortgage Lenders Order To Pay $99,000,000.00 In Punitive Damages

Brent Adams — Sun, 11 May 2008 14:19:28 GMT

Missouri residents who were charged illegal fees for second mortgages have been awarded $99,000,000.00 in punitive damages against three mortgage lenders for their misconduct.

The jury, sitting in state court in Jackson County, Missouri had previously found that these defendants owed the plaintiffs 5.1 million dollars in actual damages. The three defendants are Residential Funding Company LLC, Household Finance Corporation III and Wachovia Equity Servicing LLC.

The actual damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the illegal conduct of the three mortgage companies occurred because the original lender had charged the victims excessive interest and illegal charges for origination fees, loan discount fees, underwriting fees, processing fees, document preparation fees, and legal fees.

The original lender who charged the illegal and excessive fees was Mortgage Capital Resources Corp.

The three mortgage companies listed above purchased these tainted loans from Mortgage Capital Resources Corp which is no longer in business. The former chief executive of the now defunct mortgage company is in prison for mortgage fraud.

The three mortgage companies who purchased the tainted loans defended the suit based upon their contention that they were entitled to rely upon assurances from Mortgage Capital Resources Corp that the loans fully complied with state law.

After the jury awarded 5.1 million in actual damages, in the first phase of the trial, came back to court to decide the issue of punitive damages in the second phase of the trial.

The State of Missouri has a set of laws known as the Second Mortgage Loan Act. Under this Act, many of the fees charged by the lenders were illegal.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs in this class action suit proved that the three mortgage companies knew of the lender's fraudulent conduct and "stepped into its shoes".

The case had been certified as a class action. Missouri residents who obtained second mortgages from Mortgage Capital Resources will be eligible to share in the damage Award. It is estimated that a total of 324 Missourians will qualify as members of the class.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams

What is my personal injury case worth?

Brent Adams — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:21:17 GMT

One of the most frequent questions we get from our clients is: "What is my case worth? What can I expect to put into my pocket from my claim?"

This is a question which should not be considered until at least several months after the injury occurred.

No attempt to settle a claim should be made until after the claimant's doctors have had sufficient time to learn and understand the full nature and extent of the injuries. After the doctors have had enough time to fully understand the injuries, thought could then be given to settling the case.

The value of the case is not something that can be easily calculated. The price of a case cannot be found in something like a Sears and Roebuck catalog. Neither are there any quick and simple formulas such as a multiple of the amount of medical bills that will tell you what a personal injury case is worth.

Among the factors that should be considered for valuing a personal injury case are: how much are the medical bills, what is the nature and extent of the injury and whether those injuries are permanent, how the injuries have affected the victim , whether the daily habits and lifestyle of the victim are adversely affected by the injuries, the length of time out of work, and the amount of wages lost for being out of work, the nature, degree, and extent of pain and discomfort suffered by the victim, and various other factors.

The ultimate determination of the value of a personal injury case is what a jury sitting in the county in which the case would be tried says that the case is worth. One way to estimate that number is to make a realistic evaluation of the amount your friends and family members would make of the case if you were not involved and if the victim were a complete stranger. Ask yourself what you yourself would value the case at if you were not involved.

As you can see, at best, there is no precise way to measure what a personal injury case is worth and, in the final analysis, it is largely guesswork.

However, an experienced personal injury lawyer can help you determine a reasonable estimate of the value of the case based upon his or her years of experience in dealing with insurance adjusters and juries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brent Adams