Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents - Most Commented

Under Bad Press Walmart Drops Claim Against Disabled Former Employee

Ed Normand — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:55:18 GMT

Debbie Shank was an employee of Wal-Mart who was in a trucking accident and sustained horrific permanent brain injury including most of her ability to even communicate and walk. Her medical bills were paid for by her health insurance with her employer, Wal-Mart. Of course, she worked for the right to have these health benefits. After the accident she and her family sued and recovered around $417,000 (after fees and expenses). The net settlement funds were put into a trust to help pay for her future medical care.

Sadly, after Wal-Mart got wind of the settlement, instead of offering to help more because the net proceeds were far from sufficient to cover her future care needs, Wal-Mart's health benefit plan chose to sue Mrs. Shank to take the settlement proceeds from her. Walmart won the suit because the language in its health benefit plan says that it can take everything from a settlement up to the full amount of the settlement. So it did. The Shank's appealed. They lost. Apparently, Wal-Mart did not care that this family lost everything, even a son who died in the Iraq war, and that Ms. Shank would have nothing to help her in the future.

Then finally the word got out about what Wal-Mart was doing to this family. The story appeared all over the internet, in the mainstream news and elsewhere. Most people were astounded that large companies can take away all of the settlement proceeds from an auto accident or other injury. Most people do not know that these employers can do this even though the employee worked hard to earn the health benefits. It was not welfare.

According to an interview with Jim Shank, after all the bad publicity, Wal-Mart decided to do the right thing. Wal-Mart claims it will not take all the recovery from Ms. Shank and will amend its benefit plan to "allow us more discretion for individual cases". Hopefully Wal-Mart and other will recognize that it is not fair to treat employees this way. After all, the employee worked for the health benefits, it was not given for free. Further the employee is the person hurt, the employee has to hire the lawyer, do all the work to win in court, take all the risk including financial liability if they lose in court, and so it is not fair that the employer can sit back and just take all the money dollar for dollar once the employee wins the case. For years and years the fair way for health insurers to operate and a way that many State Laws require (but not employment health plans which are immune from State law) is that the health insurer can get paid back a fair percentage. By example, if the injury is worth one million dollars but the net recovery is only 10% of that then the health plan should only get paid back 10% of its medical bills. That is more fair and hopefully what Wal-Mart will make as its policy.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Insurance Institute Recommends Higher Legal Driving Age

Sandy Grinnell — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:42:06 GMT

After reviewing years of statistics on traffic-related teen deaths, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is recommending that states raise the legal driving age to 17, or even 18. According to the IIHS, car crashes are the number one cause of deaths in teens and they feel increasing the age to 17 or 18 would save lives.

The IIHS report points to statistics from the state of New Jersey where the driving age has been 17 for several years and the rate of 16 and 17 teenage deaths were 18 per 100,000. In neighboring Connecticut, where the minimum driving age is 16, the rate is 26 deaths per 100,000.

"This is a tough sell," says Anne McCartt, Institute senior vice president for research, "but it's an important enough issue to challenge the silence and at least consider changing the age at which we allow teenagers to get their licenses to drive. After all, graduated licensing has been successful ever since states began to adopt these programs more than a decade ago, and raising the licensing age is a logical next step to reduce driving by the riskiest motorists on the road, the youngest ones."

According to the Washington Post:

More than 5,000 U.S. teens die each year in car crashes. The rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59, according to the National Highway Safety Administration. Many industrialized countries in Europe and elsewhere have a driving age of 17 or 18.

Many states have initiated strict graduated driver''s licenses which they believe are saving lives. Getting the state legislatures to increase the age to 17 will be difficult and it will be an uphill battle with most parents and the teenagers. Teenagers want their freedom and a lot of parents look forward to dropping "chauffeur" from their list of parental responsibilities.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

MADD Announces Campaign To Eliminate Drunk Driving

Bruce Gibson — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:31:14 GMT

MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) recently announced that alcohol-related traffic deaths are at an all time high since 1992 and has called upon Congress to hold immediate hearings to address solutions. According to NHTSA, alcohol-related traffic fatalities exceeded 17,900 for the year 2006, the highest number in 15 years.

We all have known people who have lost a loved one in a car crash caused by a driver who was legally drunk. Our firm has handled hundreds of cases where alcohol was the cause of a motor vehicle crash that resulted in death or serious injury to innocent victims. MADD believes that the reason people continue to drive drunk, despite the devastating effect it has on families, is because they can. There are 1.4 million drunk driving arrests in this country every year and we must make sure these individuals never drive drunk again. Please support MADD in calling upon Congress to developing a plan of action and support its Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. This is chance to get involved and do all we can to stop this senseless tragedy that affects not only the victims who are killed or injured in the auto accident, but also their families and friends.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bruce Gibson

Texting While Driving PSA Getting Lots of Attention

Sandy Grinnell — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:27:50 GMT

A British public service announcement is getting a lot of air time these days, and not just on British television but on YouTube. The very graphic PSA depicts a horrific accident that begins with three teenage girls laughing and joking while the driver texts a friend. Of course the result is a head-on collision and several people dying.

The spot is broadcast with the intent of getting teenagers to understand the dangers of texting and driving. However, there has always been debate over whether this type of psa actually changes behavior. I remember years ago in my driver's ed class we were shown accident films. To this day I can see in my mind the photos of a body totally charred from a vehicle fire. Does it change the way I drive? It was along time ago so I'm not sure. But we need to do something to stop the increasing number of people of all ages who are texting while driving. It's frightening!

I would suggest that it be required viewing for all teenagers, many of whom think they have this texting while driving thing down pat. Let them just what can happen...

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

Deadly Crash With Train Kills Five in Sanford

Sandy Grinnell — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:04:17 GMT

Florida Highway Patrol is investigating the deaths of five adults after the vehicle they were riding in crashed into a freight train stopped on the tracks. According to the Orlando Sentinel, the lights andcrossingarms were both working when the Chevy Avalanchestruckthe train right between two of the cars. There was a street light out nearby whichprovided limited visibility but there was no other indication of cause of the accident.It took several hours to remove the victims from the wreckage where four of the passengers died at the scene and the fifth died at the hospital.

Because of the excess speed at which the vehicle was travelling, FHP was speculating as to whether or not the vehicle was being pursued by local police, resulting in the crash. Sanford Police and the Seminole County Sheriff's Office reportedly had tried to stop the vehicle earlier, but were not in active pusuit at the time of the crash.

FHP has not released the names of the five adults, but it is for certain there will be several families hurting from this terrible accident.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

Ethics of Law Firm Case Managers

Ed Normand — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:08:00 GMT

Nationwide, to cut expenses and to increase profits, some firms are allocating cases to "Case Managers", "Paralegals" or other fancy titles instead of using lawyers. This article will explore some of the ethics associated with using case managers. It has been reported that some firms have case managers that are, to some degree which varies from firm to firm, overseen by a lawyer. The case managers may just assist the lawyer but in some firms the case managers actually handle the entire case without the client ever even meeting the lawyer. There is clearly the practice of law going on there. Obviously a case manager is cheaper than a lawyer but the question is does the law degree matter and is it ethical or correct to delegate these responsibilities to non lawyers. After all if a case manager can work up an entire case why is it illegal for a non lawyer to do it on their own without a lawyer "overseeing" them, whatever that means?

There have been cases where law firm employees have been criminally prosecuted where they have case managers, paralegals, (whatever they want to call them) handle the case without any lawyer involvement. This has been considered the illegal practice of law by non lawyers.

Aside from the ethics or legality of the situation, as a consumer of legal services do you really think that a non lawyer can understand the legal issues involved and be a zealous advocate for a claim that they know they cannot lawfully file as a lawsuit because they are not a lawyer? Do you believe that a case manager who may or may not even have a high school degree can negotiate with a licensed trained insurance adjuster as well as a lawyer can. Maybe so in some cases (after all there are admittedly some hack lawyers) but overall as a consumer you have a choice. If it were me or my family I would choose a lawyer that is Board Certified and actually works on your case, not shuffles it to the staff. You have a choice as a consumer of legal services and you should carefully consider when choosing a lawyer if you are, indeed, .

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

"Car Crash Taxes" Banned in Florida

Sandy Grinnell — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:19:21 GMT

"Car crash taxes" are the fees some Florida cities have begun to charge drivers who cause auto accidents. The fees were to cover the cost of the first responders to accident scene - emergency medical personnel and the fire department. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist signed the new law this week that bans those fees.

Opponents of the fees said this was a form of double-taxation in that property taxes are collected to cover the cost of emergency services. Also the fees were not covered by most insurance companies.

Of course, the municipalities were using the fees to cover the significant budget shortages due to reduced property values.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

More On Recent Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer Ads ?

Ed Normand — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:09:00 GMT

I have previously posted about lawyer ads on TV for personal injury claims in Orlando. I highlighted ads from a lawyer who is not a Florida Bar Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer who is all over the TV soliciting personal injury and auto accident victims in Florida and especially Orlando. One of the blogs discussed a TV ad that advertised the “goal” of the lawyer to recover 25 million dollars next year and how that really has nothing to do with how well he serves his clients. Well I just saw a new ad discussing that the lawyer has represented certain types of people like doctors, nurses and “retired judges”.

Now what is interesting is that Florida Bar Rules prohibit testimonials from former clients touting how great a job the lawyer did for them in their personal injury claim. The reason for this rule is that it is misleading to the public to represent that a lawyer can obtain a good result in your case because he had a client who believes the lawyer did a good job in the client’s case (whether or not that client can even determine if the lawyer did a good job as other lawyers may have done much better for the client). Now listing the professions of former clients is not a testimonial but is the intention and spirit behind the rule prohibiting testimonials violated with a TV ad bragging about the professions of former clients?

One must ask what purpose does it serve to the public to advertise that you have represented doctors, nurses or former judges? Clearly one result of the ad is to imply that this lawyer must be a good lawyer if he represents former judges. How does one know if that is even true. Did he really represent former judges (plural) or one judge? What if the judge is the lawyer’s relative? What if the former judge thinks the lawyer did a crap job in the personal injury case? What if the lawyer agreed to do the case for free so he could tell everyone on TV he represented former judges? What was the cleint a judge of? Was he or she a beauty contest judge? One can see that although not a testimonial, there are many questions raised by a personal injury lawyers TV ads that brag about the professions of former clients. They tell nothing about the lawyers qualifications or ability or how well the lawyer will do in your case. In fact, these ads imply that the lawyer must be qualified if these other smart professionals hired him. As we can see that is not a valid conclusion and one needs to know much more about the lawyer and even about the former clients and the results obtained for them before such a conclusion can be made.

I have represented doctors, nurses and many other lawyers in injury claims. I do not think from that alone you should draw any conclusions about my qualifications. Instead I would look to the Florida Bar. Ask if the lawyer is Board Certified as a Civil Trial Lawyer by the Florida Bar. That is an objective mark of quality about the lawyer’s skill and experience. I would require nothing less in any lawyer I hired and you should do the same.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Real Cases You Won't Believe But Are True

Ed Normand — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:09:00 GMT

I am going to periodically discuss facts (without names but call me if you want more info) about cases where you won't believe that corporations or people can act so low.

For example, a family came to Orlando on a vacation. They needed to rent a car and the rental car company suggested they rent a certain mini van because it had a car seat built into the middle row of seats so they did not have to rent a car seat also. That sounded safe and sensible so the family rented the van. The teenagers sat in the back row, the parents sat in the front seats and the baby was safely in the built in car seat in the middle row. While stopped at a red light they were hit from behind by another vehicle. The two kids in the way back third row seats next to the collision were fine. The parents were fine. The baby's head was crushed in. She has permanent brain damage and is deaf forever.

You see this major auto company put the built in child's car seat behind a front seat that it purposefully designed to collapse backward in a rearend collision. So when the van was hit, the father's seat collapsed back and his head crushed the babies skull. Believe it or not, this corporation claimed in open court that this front seat was designed to collapse back in a rear end collision. They claimed it worked as designed. They nevertheless built in a child seat right behind the collapsing front seat to sell more vans. This is not the only case either. There are children throughout the United States that have died or been badly hurt by this collapsing seat design. Yet they continued to sell the van with the collapsing seats for years. There was even a 60 Minutes show on the dangers of the collapsing van seats and yet they still sold the van without warning about the dangerous seats.

Now can you believe that one? Sadly, its true.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Did MADD Intenionally Inflict Emotional Distress?

Diego Madrigal — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:40:37 GMT

I came across a few blog posts this morning that raised an interesting question: Whether Mothers Against Drunk Driving intentionally inflicted emotional distress on high school students in California:

Many juniors and seniors were driven to tears – a few to near hysterics – May 26 when a uniformed police officer arrived in several classrooms to notify them that a fellow student had been killed in a drunken-driving accident.
The officer read a brief eulogy, placed a rose on the deceased student's seat, then left the class members to process their thoughts and emotions for the next hour.

About an hour later, the students were all called to the school's stadium were they were told the entire thing was a hoax sponsored by MADD. The program was designed to show the students the effects of drinking and driving. This is a noble and worthy cause, but it seems that some of the students may have been left a bit traumatized by the experience. Some people are asking whether MADD and the other organizers committed intentional infliction of emotional distress. One organizer admiitted they tried to traumatize the students on purpose:

“If I sit there and lecture somebody in a nice way, it's going to go in one ear and out the other,” he said. “In today's world, where they have all sorts of gore and fantastic things that kids can access on the computer, if you want to compete with that, you have to jar them emotionally.
“I want them to be an emotional wreck. I don't want them to have to live through this for real.”

The elements in Florida for IIED are:

(1) Defendant’s conduct was intentional or reckless;

(2) Defendant’s conduct was outrageous;

(3) Defendant’s conduct caused emotional distress; and

(4) Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.

So, did MADD (a great organization, by the way) and other organizers overstep their bounds and cross into the infliction of emotional pain? Was making unwilling students suffer? Everyone seems to have an opinion on this, what is yours?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Diego Madrigal