Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Animal attacks

Don Jacobs — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:14:00 GMT

Who out there isn’t a dog lover? America seems to have a love affair with pets. Pet food and supply stores have become national chains occupying huge warehouse stores set up to supply us with every need or whim for our pets. The latest phenomenon is the doggie day care facility where you take your pet to spend the day with other dogs while you go off to work. Heck, mine even has a web cam so you can check on your dog’s activities during the day. We truly are a nation obsessed with our pets. So what happens when one of our pets attacks someone? Animal bites can result in very serious injuries. Every year hundreds of people in Oregon and Washington visit emergency rooms because of attacks by dogs. Are we automatically responsible when this happens? What if the dog has never bitten anyone in the past and has always had the sweetest temperament? Washington State has enacted a strict liability law for dog attacks. It used to be that the owner wasn’t responsible unless they had knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. Long referred to as the “first bite rule”, a dog owner wasn’t on the hook until there was a record of the dog biting someone in the past. In order to recover damages from the owner you had to prove they were negligent in allowing the dog to interact with people, given his history of biting someone in the past. This is no longer the case. Now an animal owner is strictly liable for his dog’s behavior. No matter how sweet the dog has been the past. As long as the person who was bitten was legally entitled to be where he or she was, and they didn’t do anything to torment or provoke the dog, the owner is strictly liable for the attack. You no longer have to prove any negligence on behalf of the owner. You are entitled to recover damages for the bite. This usually takes the form of medical bills, wage loss and an amount for what you went through, to include a reasonable figure for any permanent scarring left from the bite. When these claims are made, they typically are paid for by the dog owner’s homeowners or renters insurance. Claims resulting from animal attacks, like auto accidents, usually have to be brought with a certain time after the attack. If you miss the deadline, you can lose all right to recover damages.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Jacobs

Cannondale bicycle recall

Don Jacobs — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:34:42 GMT

Consumers who purchased Cannondale bikes recently should take a close look at their purchase. Cannondale markets a wide selection of aluminum bikes in the United States. The company recently announced a recall of about 1,500 bikes due to a faulty part that can cause riders to lose steering and crash. Apparently the front end forks on the recalled bikes can lose alignment without warning, causing the front wheel to turn unexpectedly. So far, no injuries have been reported. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently issued a news release on the problem. The recall involves the model year 2008 Cannondale Adventure 2, Adventure 3, Adventure 2 Feminine and Adventure 3 Feminine bikes. The model name can be determined by looking at the bicycle’s frame. The recalled bikes have a suspension fork with the words “Cannondale AT35 Adventure Trail” marked on them. The forks in question are from the JD Components company in Taiwan. According to the press release, the bikes equipped with the Rock Shox i-ride fork are not included in the recall. The recalled bikes were sold to consumers at Cannondale dealers in the late winter and early spring of this year. Consumers should stop using the bikes immediately and call their dealer for a free repair. For additional information, visit Cannondale’s website at www.cannondale.com.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Jacobs

Stimulus bill and corporations

Don Jacobs — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:51:13 GMT

So I guess the thinking is we need to rescue large corporations from disaster or else their downfall could end up hurting everyone in America. We need to give them billions, not millions, billions of dollars. And we can’t attach any strings to the donation either. They can spend it on corporate retreats or executive bonuses. This is exactly what happened. Their own greed and incompetence created a disaster for their company, but they end up being rewarded and the rest of us foot the bill through our tax dollars. So they need a government bailout. If they don’t get what they want, they threaten to go under and drag the economy down even further. They threaten massive layoffs and cry doom and gloom. We are told letting one of these big banks, auto companies or insurance companies fail would create a domino effect. So we give them what they want. And what happens? They come back for more. The insurance giant AIG was given billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat. Did they become profitable? Did they start paying the money back? Hardly. No, instead they come back and ask for another 30 billion dollars. And get it. Remember this is the same insurance industry that has been telling the American public for years that we need to pass laws to limit your right to sue if you get sick from tainted milk, mercury in your toothpaste or you end up losing your retirement nest egg due to corporate Enron type fraud. They’ve been telling us for decades that we need to pass tort reform or else they can’t be profitable. The sad thing is many in America believed them. I suppose it will only be a matter of time before they try to claim the reason for their financial troubles is because of too many lawsuits. So we’ll give them more billions of taxpayer dollars. And when people are hurt because of shabby unsafe products or lose their money in corporate Ponzi schemes, they’ll scream we need to limit these frivolous lawsuits or else they can’t be profitable. They’ll run expensive slick nationwide TV ads that vilify lawyers and show how lawsuits are hurting small businesses. As if they would ever fit the definition of a small business. An ad campaign to convince the public the American justice system is broken and needs a complete makeover, with new rules designed to benefit – guess who? And the irony of it all? The ad campaign will be paid for with your tax dollars.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Jacobs

Crazy juries

Don Jacobs — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:06:00 GMT

While preparing for a recent jury trial involving a personal injury claim one of the expert witnesses, a doctor, mentioned that my job wasn’t too tough. According to him, all I had to do was convince a bunch of people too stupid to get out of jury service that my client deserves to recover. An interesting position given that logic would dictate my opponent could use the same tactic to cancel out my efforts. Also an interesting comment from someone who has testified as a paid expert on more than one occasion. He must have appeared in front of his fair share of juries. I wonder if he ever asked the lawyers just what type of people were serving on those juries. I doubt it. If he had, he would have learned they were from all walks of life; blue collar, white collar, government workers, small business people, self employed, retirees and even an occasional college student. Baristas, engineers, other lawyers and even some doctors have sat on juries I’ve seen. A recent governor of California even served on a jury. So maybe he like so many other Americans has bought into the decades long public relations campaign the national Chamber of Commerce and corporate America has paid millions of dollars to promote. A campaign to convince the public the court system is broken and out of control. A campaign designed to help them gain public support to pass tort reform laws. Laws that generally do nothing but throw up obstacles for consumers seeking help when injured or wronged. Roadblocks that make it harder to sue if their kids are poisoned by tainted milk, the product they buy falls apart or their retirement funds are lost because of some corporate scandal. A campaign that tries to convince the public the people who serve on juries are too stupid and just can’t be trusted. As this is the week we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, it made me think of his experience with juries. In February of 1960, a warrant was issued for the arrest of the civil rights leader on charges of tax evasion. He was accused of allegedly falsifying his Alabama income tax returns. He was the only person ever prosecuted under the state’s income tax perjury law. It seemed like an easy victory for a government bent on getting rid of the civil rights leader. In his autobiography, Dr. King describes the trial as follows:

“This case was tried before an all-white Southern jury. All of the State’s witnesses were white. The judge and the prosecutor were white. The courtroom was segregated. Passions were inflamed. Feelings ran high. The press and other communications media were hostile. Defeat seemed certain, and we in the freedom struggle braced ourselves for the inevitable. There were two men among us who persevered with the conviction that it was possible, in this context, to marshal facts and law and thus win vindication. These men were our lawyers-Negro lawyers from the North: William Ming of Chicago and Hubert Delaney from New York.”

Something quite unexpected occurred. On May 28, 1960, after just a few hours of deliberation, that all white jury in Montgomery Alabama came back with an acquittal. Dr. King said this about his trial:

“I am frank to confess that on this occasion I learned that truth and conviction in the hands of a skillful advocate could make what started out as a bigoted, prejudiced jury, choose the path of justice. I cannot help but wish in my heart that the same kind of skill and devotion which Bill Ming and Hubert Delaney accorded to me could be available to thousands of civil rights workers, to thousands of ordinary Negroes, who are every day facing prejudiced courtrooms.”

The people who serve on juries in America deserve respect and gratitude for their public service, not disdain and ridicule. The next time an acquaintance tells you about an experience on jury duty, thank them. They make our system of justice work.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Jacobs

Frivolous lawsuits and justice

Don Jacobs — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:14:00 GMT

National conservative columnist George Will ran a piece recently attacking lawyers and the civil justice system. Unfortunately, he relied on anecdotes and urban myths to make his points. In this country, perception seems to be more important than reality on this issue. If people really think alligators live in the sewers of New York, no amount of proof will convince them otherwise. Claiming trial lawyers are responsible for the obesity problem in kids because lawsuits supposedly have shut down all the playgrounds is a classic example of urban myth. First of all, there are just as many playgrounds as there ever were, in fact more. Second, the rise of fast food restaurants and the Nintendo Corporation might just be one teeny reason kids aren’t as skinny as they were in the 50s and 60s. If people really believe our courthouses are clogged with frivolous lawsuits and the justice system is broken and out of control, the truth is hard to sell. In reality, the number of civil filings has been decreasing for more than a decade. But that doesn't stop Will from peddling propaganda that tries to insist litigation is out of control. The perception that we are lawsuit crazy culture is just not accurate. But don’t believe me; look at the Justice Department statistics published during the Bush Administration -- the latest in 2004. The statistics show the number of lawsuits filed across the nation has dropped steadily almost every year for the last 15. The average jury verdict has dropped to one third the average verdict in 1992. Jury trials are actually vanishing. You can believe propaganda, it’s plentiful and paid for by the people and institutions that have a lot to gain if you buy it, or you can look to the truth and the real facts. The real facts contradict just about every assertion Mr. Will stated in his editorial. The Constitution ensures that all people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system, even when taking on the most powerful corporations. Will's article insists that all lawsuits are "frivolous." Try telling that to someone when their insurance company refuses to pay a claim, or someone who is injured by a drug a manufacturer knew was dangerous, or loses their life savings because of a crooked investment banker. Do some lawsuits lack merit? Absolutely. Are there entities and institutions that overreact in order to defend themselves (like banning recess in elementary school)? You bet. Are there extremists on both sides of the issue that have lost all common sense? Unfortunately, yes. But what system would Will replace our current one with? A jury of ordinary citizens may not be perfect, but it has served us well for over 200 years.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Jacobs

Medical insurance companies fleecing consumers

Don Jacobs — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:30:00 GMT

Those of us lucky to still have medical insurance all know what happens if we see a doctor not on the company’s approved list. Referred to as “out of network” providers, most plans pay a smaller percentage of the bill when you use one of these doctors. Maybe your plan will pay 90% of the bill if you see a network provider, but only 80% if you don’t. There are lots of reasons people go to “out of network” providers. Preference for a particular doctor is one. Another is the sometimes long wait you must endure in order to get an appointment with the “network provider”. Some of these “network providers” limit the number of people they see under your plan. Others limit when they’ll see plan members to certain hours of the day, usually during slow times so you don’t get in the way of more lucrative patients. At least when you decide to go to the “out of network” provider you know up front you have to pick up the extra percentage your insurance won’t pay. But you actually pay more than just the extra percentage. Sometimes a lot more. That’s because most plans that state they’ll pay 80% of the “out of network” provider bill, discount the bill even further. They claim the bill from your doctor was excessive and as such, was above the “usual and customary” charge for that type of service in the community. Of course, the “out of network” provider you went to doesn’t agree. And he doesn’t have any agreement with your insurance company to accept what they pay. So you find yourself being billed for the difference. That 80% of the bill now looks more like 60% or 50% of the charge. And good luck trying to get the doctor to work it out with your insurance company. His staff will probably tell you they don’t have time to argue with insurance companies. And your doctor will say his rates are in line with everybody else around town. Well, it turns out he’s probably right. A recent AP article reported that insurance companies have been using a corrupt database to make you foot more of the bill. One of the nation’s largest, UnitedHealth Group Inc., just agreed to quit using a much criticized database as part of a deal to settle a fraud investigation brought by the New York attorney general’s office. They also agreed to spend $50 million to create a new database. One that will help millions of consumers pay less for "out-of-network" care. The new database will be operated by a nonprofit organization. It will replace two corrupt ones run by UnitedHealth Care's Ingenix Inc., a subsidiary they used to determine just what "usual and customary" meant when consumers saw an “out of network” provider. The fraud investigation found that insurers using the Ingenix database commonly underpaid doctors as much as 28% less than the actual “usual and customary” rate. Consumers had to eat the difference. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York said Tuesday during a press conference that the databases were riddled with conflicts of interest. He noted many health insurance companies across the nation still use Ingenix databases to set “usual and customary” rates. "I'm putting all the other health insurance companies on notice today," he said. "I believe all the companies that have been involved with Ingenix, there's a very strong case that they were perpetrating consumer fraud, and we are going to aggressively pursue those cases." UnitedHealth could face troubles in other states too. The Connecticut attorney general's office said Tuesday it was continuing an investigation into Ingenix.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Jacobs

Insurance and flood damage

Don Jacobs — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:55:46 GMT

What a winter we’ve had so far. Alarming amounts of snow and now the pineapple express blasting us with lots of rain and warm air. Freeways are flooded, passes are closed and rivers are swelling over their banks. So far it isn’t as bad as in 1996, but the season is still young. Many will recall the extreme floods the region suffered in 1996. Many homeowners and small business people had large property losses. Unfortunately, people learned back then that the typical homeowner policy doesn’t cover flood damage. Nor do they typically cover damage caused by earth movement or landslides.

Rising ground water, runoff and seepage also are not covered under a standard homeowner policy. This includes water from creeks or streams that overflow as well as runoff caused by a clogged street drain. When people sought to purchase coverage after the floods many found their companies wouldn’t provide it. Flood insurance was still available but it was expensive and difficult to obtain. And good luck finding a company to cover you if your property was in a designated floodplain. When it was provided, carriers significantly increased the deductible. Special endorsements were attached to the policy excluding coverage except in strictly defined situations. Companies inserted policy language that may cover flooding, but excluded coverage for landslides or earth movement. But flooding can sometimes cause banks to give way and undermine structures. Is that flood damage or earth movement? Heavy rains can saturate hillsides creating unstable slopes. Is that brown slurry flowing against and causing damage to the back of your house water damage? Or damage from a landslide? If you are lucky enough to have flood coverage what happens if a nearby river overflows and destroys your home? Do you have any recourse? As the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. You have to carefully read your policy. Contact your agent immediately. Make a claim. Your insurance company is obligated to either accept or deny the claim within a reasonable time. If the claim is denied, they have to provide an explanation of why the denial is appropriate under the applicable law and policy language given the facts of your case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Jacobs

US Chamber of Commerce lawsuit abuse ads

Don Jacobs — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:21:45 GMT

Well the new administration isn’t even sworn in yet and already the moneyed interests in the country are buying advertising time to convince the public there are too many lawsuits. For the last eight years the republican congress and executive branch have tried to enact more and more laws to limit lawsuits against corporations. Federal regulations have been changed to make it harder to sue by creating more hoops for a consumer to pass through before they get their day in court. Some of the regulations are so restrictive they essentially give some companies complete immunity from any liability if people are harmed by their products. Corporate America is afraid the new administration will roll back some of these roadblocks and enact tort laws that are more consumer friendly. They must feel the ads will convince people more tort reform is needed so they’ll put pressure on their elected representatives to preserve those laws and regulations enacted over the last eight years. Of course, what they don’t want to limit is business against business lawsuits. These suits make up the vast majority of court cases in America. No, they want to limit consumer suits. Lawsuits brought by people who get hurt by dangerous products. Such as ones that target corporations that use tainted milk products from China made with poisonous melamine. Or the suits brought by consumers who’ve just seen their life savings or pensions evaporated because of Enron like corporate greed. So they roll out the new ads in a nationwide media buy called “the faces of lawsuit abuse”. Of course the ads are all about small businesses struggling to survive in a lawsuit happy world. So why did the National Federation of Independent Business release a survey in 2008 that showed the “costs and frequency of lawsuits” ranked at the bottom of small businesses’ concerns? Prior surveys of small businesses conducted by Business Week and the National Association of Manufacturers also showed litigation wasn’t really much of a concern to most small businesses. The reason? There is no litigation explosion, especially against small business owners. This myth has been perpetuated for years by people who stand to gain something if the public believes it. Don’t take my word for it. Ask any judge, court clerk, bailiff, lawyer or anyone else who works at a courthouse. Better yet review the public data from the state courts in your state. The truth is lawsuits brought by consumers make up a tiny fraction of the suits filed in this country. Yet the public is subjected to continuous pounding of this litigation explosion message in expensive nationwide ad campaigns. So who is behind the new set of ads? There is an old expression called “follow the money”. If you followed the money behind these ads you wouldn’t end up at a group of small business owners. You’d end up at some of the biggest corporations in the country. A recent press release by the American Association for Justice showed the US Chamber’s own financial disclosures reveal its Institute for Legal Reform is funded by corporations notorious for their negligence and misconduct. The release gave examples of some of these “small businesses” who need help from lawsuit abuse. Major corporations that sit on the front group’s board include Wal-Mart, Citigroup, AIG, Bank of America, and a slew of insurance and drug companies. A quote from the American Association for Justice’s CEO John Haber sums it up fairly well, “When you are bankrolled by giant multi-billion dollar corporations, it’s laughable to claim you’re out protecting the interests of small businesses”.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Jacobs

Uninsured motorist claims and Oregon workers compensation

Don Jacobs — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:24:00 GMT

Many people drive for a living. People injured on driving jobs in Oregon have a right to file a workers compensation claim. The claim, in theory, will pay for all medical care and a portion of their lost wages. Retraining and a disability award can also happen depending on the case facts. What is not covered is any compensation for pain and suffering, permanent loss of their health or disruption the injury created in their life. These damages are fully recoverable however if one is injured in a tort claim, such as an injury caused by a careless driver. When a worker’s injury is caused by someone not employed with their company, the worker also has a right to bring a tort claim and still receive workers compensation benefits. So what happens if the person from outside the job who caused the injury is uninsured? Many employers carry uninsured motorist coverage on company vehicles. If so, the injured worker is entitled to more than just the usual worker’s compensation benefits. Although the insurance company is allowed to deduct from these benefits what was paid under the worker’s compensation coverage, the worker is still entitled to extra compensation if this coverage exists. The lesson to be learned is to always ask if your employer carried this coverage if injured while driving a company vehicle.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Jacobs

US financial meltdown and tort reform

Don Jacobs — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:43:00 GMT

An interesting article in last Friday’s Seattle Post Intelligencer newspaper detailed the history of the subprime loan mess and the greed that consumed the banking and mortgage industry. It also detailed how congressional members worked to ensure banks and mortgage lenders were granted immunity from lawsuits should anyone ever want to sue. The “tort reform laws” gave the industry virtual immunity from civil suits. Lenders made very risky loans in a frenzy to collect more and more transaction fees. When the loans went into foreclosure, the value of the properties couldn’t cover the debt. At the same time these banks were telling the public their money was safe and the institutions financially strong, since they were propped up by mortgage backed securities. Well, we all know what happened. The housing market crashed, the credit market dried up and stocks in all of our retirement plans plummeted. All because of the greed of an industry. Now not only do we see our retirement mutual funds shrink, we see ourselves as taxpayers having to bail out the institutions because of their greed and mismanagement. There is an interesting quote in the article from University of Connecticut law professor Patricia McCoy regarding what would have been different if the industry had not been given immunity from lawsuits by way of tort reform passed by a republican congress, “I have no doubt the industry would not have made those (risky) loans. They would have put controls in place”. Professor McCoy is a former banking and securities attorney and recognized expert on this type of liability. The article contained another interesting quote from Kathleen Keest, a former Iowa assistant attorney general who now studies lending activity for the Center for Responsible Lending, “There was a lot of legal talent hired by the industry to try to figure out ways to make sure that nobody along the chain (including Wall Street) had to suffer legal accountability”. They take your money, they make you pay for the bailout and then they write tort reform laws so you have no legal recourse. What a great country.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Don Jacobs