Preparing for Your First Meeting With Your Personal Injury Lawyer

February 17th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

In a previous article, I discussed the qualities you should look for in a personal injury attorney (trial experience, previous work with personal injury cases, a successful track record, etc). Once you have found the right lawyer, you will meet with him or her.

At the initial meeting, you should provide your attorney with as much evidence and information regarding your case as you can. Properly documenting police reports, medical reports, damage reports, photos, and/or eye-witness accounts allows for a stronger case.  Make sure to bring all correspondence from any insurance company.  Make sure to bring a copy of the “declarations page” for any insurance policy that you may have had in force. (The “declarations page” shows what types of coverage you had purchased and the amounts of coverage.)

The more documents that you can give your lawyer at the beginning of your case, the faster your lawyer can get your case moving.  Ultimately, this will yield a faster, and perhaps larger, settlement.

 

 

Slips on Snow or Ice

February 7th, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

We typically receive several calls each winter regarding falls on ice or snow.  These slips and falls can be serious.  I once encountered a case in which a business patron actually had his leg amputated, resulting from complications of a fall on ice.

However, most people misunderstand what obligations property owners have regarding snow and ice. Contrary to popular belief, property owners and business owners generally have no duty to clear snow and ice.  (They often mistakenly believe that they do, and accordingly clear the ice and snow.)

In Ohio, snow and ice are considered general hazards of living in the northern parts of the United States.  Everyone is supposed to take care to avoid slipping on snow or ice.  In most cases, if a business owner fails to shovel the snow or put salt on ice, and you fall, you have no case against the business owner (or homeowner, or whomever).  Shoveling snow or removing ice is, legally speaking, merely a courtesy extended to the walking public.

There is one major exception, however.  If a property owner creates an unnatural accumulation of snow or icethen the owner can be liable.  For example, a property owner has a gutter that is facing in a direction that causes water to flow over a walking surface.  The water freezes and causes a slip hazard.  The owner can be liable in that situation.

More complicated are the “snow pile” cases.  Store owners with large parking lots plow the snow into large piles.  The snow starts to melt, creating new ice.  Courts have gone both ways on these cases.  Ultimately, whether the ice unnaturally accumulated will be the deciding factor.

If you think that you may have a case arising from a slip on ice, please call us at 740-374-5346.

 

Finding the Right Attorney

December 19th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

How do you find the right lawyer in your injury case? My advice: do not just call the first lawyer in an ad that you see.

All attorneys market themselves, some more than others. The best-known lawyers in your area will be the ones with well-planned marketing campaigns. They will have television and radio commercials, billboard ads, catchy jingles, and a myriad of ways of making sure you remember their name.

These may be great lawyers. But, they may not. The quality of advertising doesn’t always correlate with an attorney’s quality of representation. Do your research before calling. Is this how you would choose your surgeon?

Ask around. Ask your doctor who they would recommend. Call a lawyer who you know does not handle injury cases. See who he or she would recommend. Research the injury lawyer’s experience and background on the internet.

Many lawyers will tout that they accept personal injury cases, but that does not mean that all lawyers are personal injury specialists. Technically, lawyers are not supposed to call themselves “specialists” (although some states do recognize certain specialty fields). However, there are lawyers who make an entire practice of injury litigation. If you have been injured, these are the attorneys you need to look for.

Make sure your lawyer is a trial lawyer. For some reason, this name has become politicized. Regardless, my experience is that few lawyers can, or will, actually try a personal injury case before a jury. You need to ask: “Have you tried a personal injury case to a jury?” “How many times?” You do not want to find out two days before trial that this is the first time for your lawyer. (You would be surprised that even lawyers with twenty years of experience have never tried a civil trial to a jury.)

You may need a further specialized lawyer. If your claim is a standard personal injury claim, an experienced personal injury lawyer will suffice; however, if you have received a workplace injury or an injury through medical negligence, then you should look into finding either a worker’s compensation lawyer or a medical malpractice lawyer.

Finally, you want an attorney that can devote sufficient time to your case and, if necessary, take your case to court. Good lawyers work on many cases at once and are used to handling the fast-paced nature of their occupation. That said, if your lawyer is completely bogged down with open cases, he or she may not be able to devote as much attention to your case as is necessary. Ask.

C.Diff Infections Caused by Antibiotics

October 28th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

We are currently handing a case involving a C. diff. infection caused by an antibiotic.  That is right—an infection caused by an antibiotic.

 

Clostridium difficile (C.diff.) is a bacteria that is often found in the large intestines.  It is kept in check by the “good” bacteria that is normally found in the colon.

 

Many antibiotics, particularly the stronger antibiotics, will kill the “good” bacteria in the intestine, leaving the C.Diff. bacteria to grow unchecked.  The C.Diff. is a dangerous bacteria that can cause intestinal inflammation.  In minor cases, the patient will notice diarrhea.  In more severe cases, the patient may develop colitis—an inflammation of the bowels.   In still more severe cases, the C.Diff.-induced colitis can cause the large intestine to be injured so severely that the colon must be completely removed. The patient will live with a colostomy or ileostomy bad. And, yes, some people have died.

 

Sometimes, these infections are the result of medical negligence.  Antibiotics should only be prescribed for bacterial infections. Some of the stronger antibiotics, such as clindamycin, specifically warn that it should only be prescribed for confirmed bacterial infections that cannot be treated with other antibiotics.  In fact, clindamycin carries an FDA-mandated “black box” warning to this effect because of the risk of C.Diff.-induced colitis.

 

Most importantly, symptoms of the C. diff. infection may not begin for weeks after the patient has completed taking the antibiotic. The patient usually does not know to suspect the antibiotic as the cause of the diarrhea.

 

You may ask:  isn’t the patient responsible for reading this warning?  Not exactly.  Here is why. As a prescription drug, the pharmacy does not provide all of the drug information specific to that drug.  All the patient typically gets is the amber pill bottle with a sticker explaining how often to take the pills.  Sometimes, the pharmacy will provide a general drug information sheet, but these usually do not have the specific warnings about the drugs.  The information sheets that I have seen do not provide the “black box” warning, do not warn about C. diff. colitis, and do not warn that symptoms may not manifest for weeks after taking the drug.

 

The law requires that the physician warn the patient about a drug’s potential side effects. So, a physician or dentist must first be sure that the antibiotic is required—i.e., is there a bacterial infection?  Second, if it is indicated, the physician must warn the patient about the potential to develop a C.Diff. infection.  This can be as simple as, “If you develop diarrhea while you are taking this, or even in the six weeks after, call me.  Sometimes these types of antibiotics can cause an intestinal infection.”

 

Some doctors and dentists are not doing these things.  They prescribe powerful antibiotics when they are not sure of an infection.  Worse yet, they provide no warning to their patients. This places the patients in danger—unnecessary danger.  There have been a number of reported cases throughout the United States in which doctors have been held liable for this type of negligence.

Life Insurance Claim Denials caused by Portability and Conversion Mistakes

October 25th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

During the last four years, I have had several cases in which children and widows of deceased employees were denied the life insurance benefits that had been purchased through their employer’s benefit plan.  In each case, the employer, in conjunction with the life insurer, botched the “conversion” process.

 

Employers often will sponsor “group” term life insurance plans for their employees.  The employees are usually given a small policy for which the employee pays no premium.  In many cases, the employees can also purchase additional “voluntary” term life insurance for much higher policies.  The greater the premium, the more the total insurance.

 

What is little understood is that when the employee quits or retires, the coverage will cease.  There is usually a 30 or 31 day period in which the employee must file a new application to “convert” the group policy to an “individual” policy.  This is often called “portability” of the policy.  The beauty of this choice is that the employee who elects to “convert” need not pass a physical or be otherwise insurable.  The employee can be very sick, in fact.  By law, the insurer must accept the employee.  (They may charge a king’s ransom for premiums.)

 

The key is: the employee must properly make the election and fill out the correct applications with the insurer.  Otherwise, the coverage ends. Life insurers usually are not keen on writing these types of policies, so they will not go out of their way make sure they are converted.

 

I have been seeing employers who: (1) fail to inform their employee of these conversion rights, or (2) misinform the employees about these conversion rights.

 

Every case is different. The first question is:  what does the plan state?  What does the summary plan description state? What did the retirement benefits counseling documents state?  The written documents will play a big role in any eventual lawsuit. The second question is: what did the employer tell the employee?

 

I have seen unusual life insurance policies that state “We will contact you within 30 days to discuss conversion.”  Then, the insurer does not contact the retiree.  That is a problem.  The insurer broke the promise.

 

I have also seen large employers give their employees written documents stating that there is active coverage when there is not.  This is a misrepresentation of true state of affairs, and it may cause the employer to be liable for the value of the policy.

 

There is even a reported case in which the employer remained silent about the employee’s conversion benefits and was held liable for those benefits.  The retiree was very ill and his girlfriend  (and beneficiary of the life insurance policy) called to ask about continuing “his benefits.”  The company explained how to continue his health insurance under COBRA, but said nothing about his life insurance benefits.   The Court of Appeals held the employer responsible for paying the life insurance benefits.

 

Most of these conversion disputes are governed by ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act)—at least with private employers.  Under ERISA, aggrieved beneficiaries may have a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in these situations.  ERISA prescribes duties for any employer, agent, insurer, or other persons who advise employees and their families regarding benefits—“fiduciaries” under the statute.  The fiduciary can be liable to misrepresenting important details to participants.  And, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes they can be liable for not providing enough information.

 

If you are being denied life insurance proceeds because the insurer claims that your loved one failed convert or “port” the group life policy, please give us a call at 740-374-5346.

 

Ethan Vessels

Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels, LLC

Spinal Disc Injuries – A Video from Ethan Vessels

September 21st, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

ev

The Oil and Gas Boom

August 26th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Southeast Ohio is once again experiencing an oil and gas boom.  The development, or potential development, of the Marcellus and Utica shale formations is reinvigorating the gas business in our area.

Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels handles oil and gas matters.  We will review proposed leases, assist in negotiating leases, and can provide real estate transaction services involving oil and gas leases.

At Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels, we also assist landowners who have current non-producing leases.  Under Ohio law, there are methods to cause the forfeiture of non-producing leases that burden property.  There are a number of common situations.  There may be an old lease, but no well was ever drilled.  Or, there may be a well, but no royalties have been paid.  Or, there is a well, but there have only been minimal royalties paid. Perhaps, the property is capable of additional development, but there is no current development. Sometimes, there is an “expiration” of the current lease by its own terms.

These are complicated issues, but there are ways for landowners to “un-burden” themselves of these leases, or at a minimum, obtain compensation for the burden of a not being able to obtain alternate development. Sometimes, it is necessary to file a lawsuit to enforce the landowner’s rights.

If you have a question about and oil and gas issue, please call us at 740-374-5346.

Significant U.S. Supreme Court ERISA Decision

August 26th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Our firm handles a significant number of ERISA claims for aggrieved employees and plan participants.  ERISA governs most employee benefit actions:  pensions, health plan claims, long-term disability insurance claims, and even employer-sponsored life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment insurance claims.

One of the aggravations of ERISA is the difficulty in making claims against the plan administrator for breaching his, her, or its fiduciary duties to the plan participants and beneficiaries.  Sometimes the people in charge of employee benefit plans do dishonest things, misrepresent important information to plan participants, make dumb investment decisions, or otherwise act inconsistently with their duty to further the interests of the plan participants.  This is a “breach of fiduciary duty.”  These breaches can literally cost employees hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of dollars in expected benefits.

ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) has a provision allowing participants to sue for breaches of fiduciary duty  (29 USC 1132(a)(3)).  However, in the last twenty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has hampered the ability to obtain relief under this section.  Previously, the Court held that this part of the statute would only afford “equitable” relief.  Heretofore, this meant any type of relief other than getting the trial court to award a money judgment—which is a “legal remedy.”

All of this arcane discussion of “legal” versus “equitable” remedies was great reading for lawyers, but aggravating to clients. The net result in many cases was that the participant who had been wronged could prevail in proving the bad conduct but could not obtain an award of money.  A useless victory.

However, in May, the Supreme Court added a new “equitable” remedy against wrongdoing plan administrators and fiduciaries.  Per the Supreme Court, a trial court can now impose a “surcharge” as an equitable remedy to make a beneficiary or plan participant whole.  According to the Court, this is a legitimate “equitable remedy.”

I am no legal scholar.  But, to me, this looks much like an award of money to the participant—i.e., a money judgment.  Previously, this was not permitted.  In my mind, the Supreme Court took over twenty years to come to the obvious conclusion that there must be a remedy when a participant is harmed.  This usually will require money.  My only criticism is that the Court took decades and used convoluted legal reasoning to get to the right result, instead of simply holding that aggrieved participants should be entitled to a money judgment.

Regardless, at this point, it appears that fiduciary breach litigation is now on a stronger footing.  Aggrieved plan participants can now ostensibly ask for money and call it a “surcharge” for their harm.  This is a good thing.

 

Another Significant Award in Washington County

July 28th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

I am pleased to announce that the court issued its decision on July 27, 2011, awarding $600,496.44 to the Washington County Board of Developmental Disabilities—not counting attorney’s fees yet to be awarded. Unlike my previous post, this was my trial.

I represented the Washington County Board of Developmental Disabilities regarding their employee health plan.  In 2006, the WCBDD switched to a partially-self-funded health plan for its employees.  Fully-insured health plans had started to become prohibitively expensive earlier in the decade. To save costs, the WCBDD designed a health plan in which it would pay its employee’s health claims.  The agency hired a third-party administrator, Employer Benefits Services of Ohio, to administer the plan. » Read the rest of this entry «

The “Pit Bull” Lawyer

July 26th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Over the years, I have heard clients say that they want a “bull dog” lawyer, or a “pit bull” lawyer.

I am not certain what the definition of this is, but I presume that would entail an angry lawyer.  Does a client benefit from a mean lawyer?  A win-at-all-costs lawyer?  A lawyer who refuses to concede anything?  A lawyer set to crush the opposition?

No. This lawyer will not further a client’s interests any more than any other type of lawyer.  And, this lawyer often makes things worse for the client.  » Read the rest of this entry «