Gadsden Personal Injury Lawyer

Child Killed in SUV Pedestrian Accident; Family Thanks Attorneys Who Care

Betsy Boggs — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:06:50 GMT

The following letter to the editor was written by my sister after the death of her 11-year old grandson who was hit by an SUV in Kissimmee, Florida.

L. Trammell

Douglasville, GA

January 10, 2008

The Gadsden Times
Attention: Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor:

When tragedy struck my family in October of 2007 we turned to the only people we knew could help - lawyers. We all know this day and time that lawyers are not always thought of in a favorable light - some think they're greedy, some think they're shady dealers and underhanded, and some just down right don't like them. But most would agree that they are needed often in our direst, darkest moments.

My sister, Betsy Boggs, and I both work for attorneys, and have for many years. We see a different side of the legal profession than most people do. But in October 2007, our family had an urgent need to get legal advice, and fast. My grandson was killed when he was hit by an SUV when crossing a highway in Kissimmee, Florida. He had exited his school bus that had missed the normal bus stop and was let out with other children down the street from their normal stop. In an instant our world changed. Was anyone at fault: the school bus driver, the person driving the SUV, the school board, the county for not having crosswalks for the children to cross safely? These are all questions we had and we could get no answers. My sister's firm, Cusimano, Keener, Roberts & Raley in Gadsden, Alabama got involved immediately, and found local lawyers for our family in Florida to help us out and to get us answers.

The firm sent an investigator to Kissimmee immediately to talk with my daughter and her husband, to go to the site, and to interview any and all witnesses. He was compassionate and caring - in how he dealt with the family and the witnesses. He knew he had to act quickly. The investigator went above and beyond his job. He went to where the tragedy occurred - took measurements and video of traffic in the area - especially when children were being picked up and let off the school bus. Everyone in the firm acted immediately to help my family through this tragic, awful event.

It turns out in this situation, there was little insurance. Even though the settlement was very small, it did not affect the caring and compassion of these two firms.

These firms dropped everything they were doing to help my family. They cared--they did all they could to help. You see, an 11 year old child lost his life, a family was grieving and will continue to grieve. These law firms - Cusimano, Keener, Roberts & Raley and Maher, Guiley and Maher helped more than they will ever know. They found us answers. They helped my family find some peace and gave us the best gift they could have given - their compassion, their hearts and blessings. They were not greedy, money hungry lawyers.

So, the next time you need a lawyer please remember not all of them are like what you hear - most are real people, have real families and really do care. Both of these firms proved that to me and I'll be forever grateful to them.

Very sincerely,

L. Trammell

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Betsy Boggs

How Good Is Our Health Care Anyway? (2nd in Series)

Greg Cusimano — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:28:17 GMT

How Good Is Our Health Care Anyway?

We often hear the mantra; "The U.S. has the best medical system in the world." We do have many areas of health care that deserve credit. However, The National Coalition on Health Care, (a non-partisan, non-profit coalition of large and small businesses, consumer, religious and primary care groups, as well as academicians co-chaired by former Presidents Bush and Carter), reports that although the U.S. spends the most money on medical care of industrialized nations, it performs worse than most on many measures of quality.[i] The Coalition web site says:

There are widespread problems with the quality of much of America's health care. The disparity between the care most Americans receive and the care delivered through what are considered the nation's best-managed care plans results in nearly 81,000 preventable deaths annually. Billions of dollars in lost productivity and in hospital costs could be averted through more consistent delivery of evidence-based best practices in medical services and administrative practice.[ii]

Considering deaths that could be prevented with proper care, the U.S. is 33 percent worse than the best country. Our infant mortality rate is 300% worse than the top three countries.[iii] Our system is not balanced. Millions are receiving more care than they need, millions are receiving less than they need and worse, millions are receiving the wrong kind of care. Millions are injured and estimates are that 100,000 to 200,000 die annually from medical negligence. This number reflects an amount equaling a jumbo jet crashing every day of the year, killing all aboard. How long would we as Americans allow that kind of plane to fly.

We often hear debated that 47 million Americans are uninsured. What we do not hear debated is how many of those die because they are uninsured and cannot get the health care and treatment they need. Somehow we think that there is always a way to get the surgery or treatment needed, but that is not true. Yes, our system causes bankruptcy, anxiety, financial burden, but it also causes death.

More health care isn't better health care. Because many specific treatments are known to be beneficial, such as emergency treatment of heart attacks or surgery to replace a failing hip joint, most Americans assume that more medical care in general must also be beneficial. Our research, however, reveals that patients who see more doctors and visit the hospital more often are not more likely to receive better care, have no improvement in survival, and are unlikely to have better quality of life. In fact, more care could be harmful in some cases, as documented in the study.[iv]

What does all of this have to do with lawyers? So often, even in national elections, lawyers and the court system are blamed for rising health care costs. We hear the term "junk medical suits" and "frivolous malpractice suits", not only from national candidates but also from the President of our United States in his recent State of the Union Address.

Who Is To Blame? (Watch for More)

[i] Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health system of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was 37^th.

[ii] National Committee for Quality Assurance. The State of Health Care Quality, 2006 - Industry Trends and Analysis, Washington, DC, 2006.

[iii] The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System, Why Not the Best? Results from a National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance, The Commonwealth Fund, September 2006.

[iv] www.dartmouthatlas.org, "Avoiding the Unintended Consequences of Growth in Medical Care: How Might More Be Worse?" Fisher, MD,MPH; Welch, MD, MPH; JAMA, February 3, 1999-Vol 281, No. 5, 446-453

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Cusimano

National Health Care Costs Out Of Control - The Truth!

Greg Cusimano — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:54:44 GMT

$2,900,000,000.00 ($2.9 billion) was spent on national health care in 2005 (the last year numbers are available). This sum represents:

* $6,700 for every man, woman, and child in the United States;

* 16% of the gross domestic product (expected to reach20% by 2015);

* Two times the rate of inflation

* Seven percent (7%) increase in one year; [i]

* Greater sum than any other industrialized nation including those that provide health care to all of their citizens;

* Number one cause of personal Bankruptcy in the United States-unpaid medical bills-true for the insured and uninsured.

In 2006, employer paid health insurance premiums increased 7.7%; an employer health plan averaged about $11,400 for a family off our. The yearly premium for a family exceeded the gross earnings for a minimum wage full-time worker ($10,712). The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 143% since 2000 and personal out-of- pocket costs increased 115% during the same period. Over 47 million Americans remain uninsured. [ii]

Although health care costs in the U.S. account for 16% of the gross national product (GDP), health care costs result in 10.7% of the GNP in Switzerland, 10.7% in Germany, 9.7% in Canada, and 9.5% in France. [iii] Although hard to believe, at least in 2005, health care spending was 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense. [iv]

How Good Is Our Health Care Anyway?

(Watch for more information)

[i] Catlin, A,C. Cowan, S. Heffler, et al, "National Health Spending in 2005." Health Affairs 26:1 (2006): 142-153.

[ii] For general information see: The National Coalition on Health Care 1200 G Street, NW, -Suite 750 Washington, DC 20005; www.nchc.org/facts/cost

[iii] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

[iv] California Health Care Foundation. Health Care Costs 101 -- 2005. 02 March 2005.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Cusimano

Dangerous Products: Airline Safety; Medical Safety; Food Safety; Auto Safety; Environmental Safety

Greg Cusimano — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:58:45 GMT

Can Our Government Protect Us From Dangerous Products and Activities? Can We Rely on Our Government? Should Our Citizens Have Input as Jurors?

Introduction

No one wants to be saddled with gobs of red tape and government regulations. How can our Government protect us from unscrupulous corporations and ourselves? We know that most businesses care about their products and their customers, but what about those that do not? Large sums of money, subject to gain or loss, can test the moral fiber of big business. This is especially true when the very nature of the corporate structure prevents personal responsibility. The buck does not stop with an individual and, therefore, often does not stop.

Do we need private citizens to participate in the process other than at the point of sale? Do we need juries both in tort and contract cases to help regulate misconduct? Has the structure of our appellant courts, state and federal, rescinded the input of our citizens?

Well let us look at the track record of the executive, legislative, and even the judicial branch. Two of our three branches of government are composed of individuals who run for office--soliciting funds, support, and votes from the very entities they are to regulate. It is legal to lobby and attempt to persuade individuals in those branches to support certain positions. Although we cannot directly lobby individuals once they are on the jury, they already have been lobbied through the national tort reform campaign. Judges who are elected or appointed often find themselves in office as a result of their beliefs or political preference, rather than their scholarship and competence.

Airline Safety

In April 2008, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) supervisors accused the FAA of ignoring safety lapses. The inspectors reported to Congress that when they complained about being dissuaded from pursuing complaints against a major Airlines' failure to perform required safety checks, they were harassed on their jobs. According to the inspectors, the FAA supervisors knew of the safety problems. The inspectors further reported that the agency even threatened to discharge them. After this was revealed, two other major airlines grounded many of their planes for missed inspections.[i] This is not the first time we have seen the FAA bend to airline pressure.

Medical Safety

Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a rule, which violated the intent of the FDA Amendments Act of 2007. The effort was to relax requirements for labeling and allow the claim of immunity for failure to warn of drug hazards. The FDA Amendments Act said the drug manufacturer was required to promptly update its drug label when aware of new safety information. The law was clear, but this proposed rule is another back door effort at tort reform that would not pass if offered. Once the FDA approves a drug for a specific purpose, the proposed rule would allow the drug to be used for conditions that the FDA did not approve. Although such can be good medicine, the problem is that what is known about a drug in one situation may not apply to another.

Preemption

Medical Devices

What is Federal Preemption? It means to take the place of state law. Some say it is a strategy to destroy the civil justice system. Others say it eliminates accountability and responsibility. If the state law allows the injured person to hold the wrong doer responsible and the federal law makes no provision to hold the wrongdoer responsible, how can the federal law effectively take the place of the state law?

The general public has no idea what preemption is. If they were told it means "that Americans are denied the right to hold companies accountable under the laws of their own states for the harm those corporations cause,"[ii] most Americans would not believe it. Especially since we have a conservative U.S. Supreme Court that supposedly believes in States Rights! Well in February 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion; Riegel V. Medtronic, Inc.[iii] Charles Riegel and his wife, petitioner Donna Riegel, brought suit against respondent Medtronic after a Medtronic catheter ruptured in Charles Riegel's coronary artery during heart surgery. Charlie and his wife sued the manufacturer, Medtronic, Inc. They alleged Medtronic knew the balloons were defective. Medtronic argued the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act protected them and the Riegels could not sue since the FDA had approved their marketing the device. Medtronic argued they should be immune from state-law claims. Charles later died and his estate continued to pursue the claim.

On February 20, 2008, in an 8 to 1 decision, written by the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, the court protected Medtronic and the makers of medical devices from patients and consumers who allege they were injured by the device. Justice Ginsburg was the lone dissenter. The court has other cases pending involving drugs, cigarette makers, and the like. The decision was a change of direction for the court and the consumer, but seemed in line with other recent rulings favoring business interests and turning a jaundiced eye toward civil lawsuits. Scalia wrote "Allowing juries to award damages when something goes wrong, would be unfair. A jury "sees only the cost of a more dangerous design, and is not concerned with its benefits; the patients who reaped those benefits are not represented in court."

Chief Justice Jim Hannah of Arkansas in a recent opinion had this to say about Riegel, "I am also compelled to express my dismay at the summary abandonment of venerable principles of state common law that have been developed over many generations. By a conclusory and incomplete analysis, our law is dismissed. In the place of well-reasoned judicial decisions reaching back to the England of Blackstone, injured plaintiffs are told that instead of looking to their common law for redress they must look to a regulatory agency that has no power to grant them any redress."[iv]

Over adecade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court was not so anxious to promote preemption. In the 'Lohr' case, many of the same Justices who disfavored preemption, sided with the majority in the Riegel decision. My how attitudes change, even on the U.S. Supreme Court.

What mechanism is there at the federal level to compensate for such injuries? Good question, I do not believe this decision reflects the intent of Congress. I hope they pass legislation to right this wrong soon.

Drugs

Scalia did not include drugs in his opinion, leaving that question for another day. Recently the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggested that the maker of Vioxx, Merck & Co., advanced and promoted Vioxx in numerous academic articles that had actually been ghostwritten by Merck.[v] Through lawsuits, this information was revealed in discovery. Even so, the FDA is considering allowing manufacturers to distribute medical journal articles considering off-label uses. There is concern that some manufactures will only circulate positive articles and not studies that show risks and would not advance sales. For example, a drug manufacturer sought to market Paxil off label to children. One study illustrated positive results in depressed children. That study was published, but there was another study revealing Paxil was not effective for children. That study was not submitted for publication. Doctors who prescribe drugs must receive balanced information on the risks and benefits of the drug. Without safeguards, doctors may only receive information that talks about the drug's benefits and that would be dangerous for all of us.

Food Safety

There have been many recalls and food-borne outbreaks in recent years. Consumers have lost faith in the Federal Drug Administration when it comes to food safety. The agency has faced safety problems with spinach, peanut butter, the blood-thinner drug Heparin, and contaminated pet foods made in China. Use of funds in other areas has starved the FDA financially and subjected the agency to much criticism for being beholden to big business.

Democrats have introduced legislation in the House of Representatives to bolster food and drug protection. The bill will focus on what has been called a "public health crisis". The agency is responsible for 80% of the U.S. food supply. Country of origin labeling for produce and processed foods would be required. The food industry, the FDA, and Republican lawmakers are against parts of the bill, which include user fees.

Environmental Safety

Has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) been influenced by the American Chemistry Council? An EPA panel chair was forced to step down after the Council complained. Congressional committee hearings revealed that chemical makers fundmany of the scientists on EPA panels.

Lawmakers want to know why the EPA let scientists remain on expert panels but removed Deborah C. Rice, a public health scientist, after the American Chemistry Council requested she be removed. Rep. John D. Dingell said "If industry has undue influence over this science, then the public's health is endangered."

Rice, a toxicologist for the state of Maine, testified before the Maine legislature about health risks associated with deca, which is used as a fire retardant. Maine and the European Union banned the compound. Rice's panel completed its work and a Vice President of the Chemistry Council complained. The EPA removed her from the panel and expunged her comments from the official record and even took them off the EPA web site.[vi] It was reported that at least nine scientists who received funding from chemical makers were allowed to remain on review panels.

By the way, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will not be allowed to collect from a lawsuit approximately $800 million from W.R. Grace & Co. The company claimed there were no harmful levels of asbestos in a plant they closed in New Jersey. The EPA determined that was not true. However the Company asked for protection by the Bankruptcy Act passed by Congress. The judge granted protection.[vii]

Auto Safety

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 2007 issued safety rules regarding electronic stability control, door locks, tire pressure monitoring systems, occupant crash protection, head restraints, side impact protection, and others, all of which suddenly sought to preempt state common law product liability claims involving these important safety mechanisms. NHTSA continued this trend in 2008 attempting to preempt state law school bus crash protection, child restraint systems, lamps, and reflective devices.

Now NHTSA attempts to include preemption in Roof Crush Rules. "Currently, 10,000 people die and 24,000 people are injured in vehicle rollover accidents. Instead of acting to significantly reduce injuries, NHTSA proposed a weak roof crush standard that according to their own estimates may save an additional 13 to 44 people. The proposed rule went on to explicitly state that injured people should not be able to hold manufacturers accountable for defective products that otherwise meet this low standard."[viii]

These rules try to nullify state and federal courts safety efforts and reveal how afederal agency can work on behalf of powerful corporate industries, rather than public safety concerns.

Other Product Safety

We have experienced pet food contaminated with melamine, toothpaste laced with diethylene glycol, toys coated with lead paint and tires that come apart, to mention just a few. U.S. agencies responsible for safety including FDA and Consumer Product Safety Commission are short staffed and under funded.

Conclusion

How can we protect ourselves? Many say government and industry have failed abysmally to protect consumer health. The judicial system has helped produce cases that made a difference. Courts have also provided information about problems that would not have been disclosed any other way. However many would say the judicial system has been influenced by an ideological business sea change. It seems weare experiencing pro-business justice. ".many Democrats and Republicans,. have come to share a relatively laissez-faire, technocratic vision of the economy and are suspicious of excessive regulation and reflexive efforts to vilify big business."[ix]

Robin Conrad, heads the litigation efforts for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. She is pleased that of 30 business cases in the U.S. Supreme Court last term, 22 were decided unanimously or with few dissenting votes. She expressed that liberal justices wrote most of the important decisions. She indicated that Justice Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter went out of their way to criticize the use of lawsuits to challenge corporate wrongdoing.[x]

So it seems that it is the people, citizens who sit on juries that have slipped from the process. The three branches of government have certainly had special influence pressures from all sides. People who sit on juries have not escaped the anti-plaintiff, tort reform onslaught. We live and practice in perilous times. We must be dedicated to do all in our power to insure that those damaged by others, through no fault of their own, have a way to achieve justice.

[i] Wald, Matthew L., NY Times, 4/3/08 p

[ii] Beasley, Jere. Jere Beasley Report; "The Preemption Battle Won't Go Away"

[iii] 128 S.Ct. 999 (2008)

[iv] Despain vs. Soundtec, inc. SC of Arkansas (no. 07-714, 4/10/08)

[v] Ross, Joseph J., et al, Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib, 299 J.A.M.A. 1800 (April 16, 2008); Bruce M. Psaty and Richard A. Kronmall, Reporting Mortality Findings in Trials of Rofecoxib for Alzheimer Disease or Cognitive Impairment, 299 J.A.M.A. 1812 (April 16, 2008)

[vi] Layton, Lyndsey, The Washington Post, 4/4/08

[vii] Associated Press, PhillyBurbs.com, 4/1/08

[viii] AAJ Press Release, March 27, 2008; AAJ Demands NHTSA Removes Preemption From Roof Crush Rules; AAJ Press Room

[ix]Rosen, Jeffrey "Supreme Court Inc.; How the nation's highest court has come to side with business". New York Times Magazine Mar.16, 2008: 40.

[x] Rosen, Jeffrey "Supreme Court Inc.; How the nation's highest court has come to side with business". New York Times Magazine Mar.16, 2008: 40.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Cusimano

What Is A Motion For Summary Judgment?

Michael Roberts — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:10:07 GMT

The defendant in my lawsuit has filed a motion for summary judgment. What does that mean? Even though our constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury, the law permits a defendant to file a motion that argues the question of whether there is at least some evidence that supports the injured person's claims. There are differing standards among the states, but frequently, the question is whether there is "substantial evidence" in support of the claim. Sometimes the question is whether there is "substantial evidence" in opposition to a defense, such as the statute of limitations.

Here is a simple example of how a motion for summary judgment works - say a store customer is hurt by a store's negligence. If, however, the store proved through its employee's testimony or affidavit that the accident happened more than two years before the customer filed suit, then the store might get a summary judgment order dismissing the case, if the accident occurred in a state like Alabama, where the statute of limitations for such cases is 2 years. If the evidence remains undisputed that the store is correct about the date, then it would win its motion for summary judgment, and the judge would be required to dismiss the case. If, however, the customer proved or provided evidence through his own affidavit or testimony that the accident occurred less than 2 years before suit was filed, then the motion should be denied, and a jury would later listen to both sides and decide who is right.

The losing party on the motion for summary judgment would have a right to appeal this decision, although, if the judge denies the motion and says a trial will be held, it may be necessary that the store wait until the trial is over and a verdict is reached by the jury before it can be appealed. On appeal, the appeals court would review the trial judge's decision on the legal question of whether the evidence was sufficiently in dispute to make it necessary that a jury decide the question. If a trial judge had ruled for the customer, and dismissed the case, and the customer later won his appeal, then the case would be sent back down or "remanded" for a trial.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Roberts

Cusimano named "Top Lawyer" and "Super Lawyer"

Betsy Boggs — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:44:27 GMT

As Practice Administrator of Cusimano, Keener, Roberts & Raley, P.C., it is always exciting when one of our firm is honored. So, I would like to share this you.

Gregory S. Cusimano was recently named to the "Top Lawyer" list in 2008 as named in the Birmingham Magazine's, The Best In Birmingham's Legal Profession. Greg practices in Gadsden, Alabama and was especially pleased to be included as a part of this respected Birmingham list. He also recently received an AV Peer Review rating by Martindale Hubbell, indicating the highest level of legal ability and ethics. The AV rating represents the pinnacle of professional excellence. Cusimano has been rated AV for many years.

Greg Cusimano was also named a "Super Lawyer" by that publication in 2008. We at Cusimano, Keener, Roberts & Raley are proud of our founding partner, Greg Cusimano. Listings are important, but more important is his care and concern for those he has the honor to represent.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Betsy Boggs

Peeemption, Bad Drugs, Devices & Products

Greg Cusimano — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:42:05 GMT

�"Giving a free get out of jail card to negligent corporations" has been used to describe Preemption.� That would give irresponsible corporations complete immunity from all lawsuits from Americans hurt by bad drugs and medical parts. There would be no hereafter for injuring or killing people because of defective products.

Why, when big, central government is getting bigger would Bush & many Republicans want to take away from states the right and power to enforce state law? Aren't conservative Republicans for 'States Rights', home rule, and a smaller federal government? Don't they complain that Democrats believe that government can and should do all things for all people? You probably know the answers to these questions.

Do we believe that if "big brother" (in the form of the Federal Food and Drug Agency (FDA)) allows a corporation to sell an unsafe drug or bad meat that injures or kills people, they shouldn't be responsible? �That the corporation that profited from the sale shouldn't even have to answer how and why it happened--- that they should get off scot-free?

That is exactly what "Preemption" is. This administration has used the Preemption strategy to in effect eliminate state law in 52 federal rules since 2005. Those politicians giving negligent corporations a free pass would likely argue, "that only big brother federal government has the know-how to regulate and control the sale of these products. We can't allow the people in the states to have a say or use their laws. We will use the federal law to handle these injuries and deaths!"

Really now! That is interesting, since, there are no federal laws that apply. If state law is not applied, those responsible are not required to be accountable for these injuries and deaths!

There are caring senators and congressmen in Washington, trying to correct this wrong-help them! Many others are supporting Preemption! �Educate yourself, understand what is going on and ask them,"Why"!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Cusimano

Tips and Traps in Auto Accidents

Michael Roberts — Fri, 30 May 2008 11:39:06 GMT

Recent changes and developments in automobile insurance law and related issues can create problems for the unwary who are dealing with the consequences of automobile accidents. One critical point is to remember that, under Alabama court decisions, if an injured person settles with the negligent person's automobile liability insurance company without taking certain affirmative steps and procedures with respect to the underinsured motorist coverage, the injured person can automatically lose his or her entitlement to additional coverage and benefits that might have otherwise been available. Also, a recent case has held that, when an automobile insurance company has one of the "named insured" persons on the policy sign a rejection form for uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance, that does not necessarily mean that this coverage is wiped out as to other persons who might be entitled to recover under that policy. Therefore, if an insurance company says there is no coverage, the documents ought to be examined in light of this new case to see whether that is really consistent with current law. Additionally, if a person is injured by more than one negligent party (such as in a multi-vehicle accident, or a situation where both a negligent driver and his employer are legally responsible for an accident), a settlement with one of these responsible parties might accidentally wipe out the injured person's rights against the other responsible party, unless a certain type of release, called a "pro tanto" release is used.

�

When health insurance plans or agencies, such as Medicare, asserts subrogation or reimbursement rights for medical expenses paid in an accident, there are steps that can be taken that can reduce, under certain circumstances, the amount that has to be repaid or reimbursed.

�

If you or a family member are uncertain of your rights with regard to an automobile accident, it is always wise to consult an attorney.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Roberts

Can I Claim Damages In Addition To My Workers' Compensation Benefits For My Work-Related Accident?

Michael Roberts — Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:00 GMT

When workers are injured on the job, they may have rights to compensation for damages in addition to their workers' compensation benefits. If a "third party" other than the employer itself is at fault, the worker might be able to recover for that negligence. Examples can include an error by a general contractor's employee that injures an employee of a subcontractor, or poorly designed equipment that could lead to product liability. Where a guard or interlock on machinery is missing, faulty or bypassed, that may be a case.

In states such as Alabama, the employer itself has immunity for all claims other than workers' compensation benefits. However, where there is serious injury or death, the worker or his or her family should retain an attorney to investigate and research the facts, because seemingly small details can sometimes make a tremendous difference in the legal options and claims that might be available.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Roberts

Trial Lawyers and the Bible

Michael Roberts — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:52:17 GMT

�

The concept of standing up and speaking out for the rights of someone who has been wronged, which is what trial lawyers do, is not a new or modern development. The roots of the lawyer's calling grow out of principles founded in the Bible. Seeking enforcement of compensation and restitution for losses caused by another person's wrongdoing, which is the heart of the civil justice system, was recognized and promulgated in the Law of Moses:

·�� When a man leaves a pit open or when a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox falls into it, the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to [the ox's] owner, and the dead beast shall be his. (Exodus 21:33-34)

·�� When a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose, and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard. (Exodus 22:5)

·�� Deuteronomy 22:8 provided legal consequences where someone builds a roof in such a way as to allow people to fall off.

�

The Law of Moses also prescribed types of damages that operate (in principle) the same as modern punitive damages, where someone's wrongdoing is more accountable than mere negligence or carelessness:

·�� If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. He shall make restitution.� . . . (Exodus 22:1-4)

�

Unlike modern corporate lawyers or insurance lawyers, trial lawyers who represent families, workers, �and small businesses find themselves standing up for people whose opponents are far more powerful and far more wealthy. The Bible recognizes the need for advocates who will try to obtain justice for those who do not enjoy advantages of riches and power:

·�� Seek justice, encourage the oppressed, defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. (Isaiah 1:17)

·�� Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. (Proverbs 31:8)

·�� Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. (Exodus 23:1)

·�� Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court. . . .(Proverbs 22:22)

·�� The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern. (Proverbs 29:7)

�

Today, there are certain corporate special interests who pursue a constant relentless agenda of slamming and disparaging the profession of law, particularly those who choose to represent the family, worker, or small business owner in disputes against insurance companies and giant corporations. Those who seek advantage through such cheap shots are overlooking the fundamental and historical moral foundation of the lawyer's calling.

�

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Michael Roberts