Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer - Head & Brain Injuries

Relief From Unfair Hospital Billing Practices

Ed Normand — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:46:00 GMT

There is a little known but highly unfair practice in charges for hospital care. That is that a private pay or uninsured patient is charged much more for the exact same services than is charged to insured patients. Many times the hospital bill for a private, uninsured, patient is 200 to 300 percent that of the charges that an insurer is billed for the very same treatment. To make matters worse, a hospital lien statute exists in many Florida Counties that gives a hospital the right to take most or all of a personal injury settlement to pay for these inflated charges. These hospital liens prohibit a lawyer or insurer from distributing any part of settlement to an injured person until the hospital gets paid in full, even when the settlement includes other medical bills, lost earnings or pain and suffering damages. In effect, the hospital can charge whatever it wants and hold the settlement up until it gets paid that blood money in full--to the detriment of doctor bills, and to the exclusion of even necessary future medical care.

A recent case in Florida addressed this lien statute and found it to be unconstitutional. The case is called Mercury Insurance Company of Florida v. Shands Teaching Hospitals and Clinics, Inc. In Mercury, the Florida First District Court of Appeals held the Alachua County Florida hospital lien law to be unconstitutional. This only makes sense. There is no valid reason should a hospital charge uninsured patients at a higher rate and then get a blank check to take away an entire settlement. What is fair is that they charge a reasonable rate and the settlement is allocated fairly to all, be they hospitals, doctors and the victim's family. This is especially relevant given the recent disclosure that many hospital executives at even so called not for profit hospitals are being paid millions in annual salary and bonuses.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

"Go Ahead And Hurt My Kid" Law Progresses

Ed Normand — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:41:04 GMT

Incredibly the Florida Legislature is proceeding with a bill to allow negligent corporations to escape all liability for injuries or death that they cause to children even from negligence. At issue are waivers the certain corporations make parents sign before they let a child engage in an activity. Under current laws the waivers are valid only for injuries caused by inherent risks in an activity. The version of the law proposed in the Florida House would permit waivers to cover not only inherent risks but would also provide a shield for liability for negligent acts. The Florida Senate version would shield for liability for inherent risks but not for negligence.

The alleged point of a waiver is to protect businesses from liability for injuries caused by the inherent risk of the activities. For activities such as horseback riding a waiver makes sense as some injuries will happen even when an activity is performed with properly trained and equipped personnel. If, for example, a horse gets spooked on a trail ride and a rider falls off there is no problem in protecting the stable from liability if they had proper equipment. That is the law in Florida now and it works well. Some businesses, however, are not satisfied with that and instead want a law that gives them blanket protection from liability for actual negligence. They want a law that would shield them from liability for all injuries even ones they could have prevented merely by using reasonable care.

The current law and the law proposed by the Senate that allows waivers for inherent risks makes sense. Under this law a parent and child can evaluate a known risk of the normal activity and, therefore, they cannot sue for suffering an injury caused by the exact danger that made the activity risky in the first place. But a waiver that excuses negligence will allow businesses to avoid all safety measures and standards of care and yet still be free from liability. Children only assume risks that are obvious in the activity, but they should not have to assume risks caused by negligence.

Lets explore a water ski injury as an example. If a parent signs a waiver and allows their child to water ski and the child is hurt from falling on the ski during normal operation there is no liability. The waiver is valid under the current law and the Senate bill. Under the proposed law the waiver goes much further. For instance, if a company hires a pedophile and never bothers with a background check and the child is sexually molested and killed when out on the boat the company gets off completely with no liability at all. If the boat driver is drinking or using drugs on the job and hurts a child, even if the company knows about the drug and alcohol use but does nothing about it, the company also has no liability under the proposed House version of the law.

The corporations argue that the parents do not have to sign the waivers, but in reality, these are "take it or leave it" waivers. Either you sign it and participate in the activity, or you don’t; it leaves no room for bargaining. Further there is no requirement that the corporation provide any information to parents about the safety of the activity before they must sign the waiver. Thus a company could conceal all injuries and deaths from the parents and hide the real facts about the safety of the activity when getting the waiver signed. Many tourists to Florida are from out of state or out of the country and it is highly unlikely they will understand that the waiver lets a company be completely careless with the safety of their child, lets them hide any knowledge of other injuries from the activity and gives them blanket protection from liability for all injuries and deaths even when caused by negligence . Most parents would interpret the form to be only a standardized form absolving the company from liability only for inherent risks of the activity.

Companies argue that the waivers protect them from incurring substantial legal fees. That is true but what they conveniently ignore is that they are just pushing the costs onto society (we the taxpayers or private health insurance). We want laws that make a company pay the cost for hurting an innocent child when they are negligent for ignoring all reasonable safety standards. Sadly, unscrupulous companies can and will use the law to cut corners because there is absolutely no reason not to. They can avoid all liability for just the cost of a piece of paper and ink that makes up a waiver, which is much cheaper than providing safe equipment or trained employees. Further, the law not only shields the companies from liability it also shields their insurance company from owing anything. As we all know, there are no free rides. Someone must pay for the medical care caused by the injury and the costs will be spread to the rest of us, not the at fault negligent party. Instead of the negligent company or its liability insurer owing the money it will be the government through medicaid or private health insurance or the hospital that pays . A law that provides for a negligent party to pay for medical bills caused by its negligence provides an incentive for safety and an incentive to get insurance instead of leaving the rest of us to pay for the damage they cause.

Under the House version of the proposed bill, however, it will end up with the taxpayers, private health insurance or hospitals footing the bills for negligent conduct. The House bill will give a cost advantage to unsafe companies who will not buy insurance or who will not pay for safety measures. Why would a lawmaker in the State of Florida want a law that gives carte blanche to ignore all safety measures and yet escape accountability for dangerous conduct? Why would they want a law that shifts the cost of ignoring safety from a negligent party to private health insurance or to the State and our hospitals? Obviously certain lawmakers are getting promises of contributions for campaigns from the lobbyists and are, shamefully, putting the money above the safety of our kids. If any of you lawmakers who support the bill are listening please use this forum to tell us why you would want such a dangerous law (other than helping you get campaign money) and how it will make for a better world for our children.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Hidden Dangers of Theme Park Rides

Ed Normand — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:01:31 GMT

While standing in line at at theme park in anticipation of enjoying a ride you have seen advertised on television you read a warning. It tells you not to ride if you are pregnant or if you have a back or neck injury. No problem there and so you proceed to the ride. While on the ride something about the ride causes you to smash a vertebrae, rupture a disc, or sustain a head injury. Should the parks be held responsible for these injuries where the park "guest' did nothing wrong, obeyed all warnings and there was no foreseeable likelihood of such an injury being sustained from the advertisements about the ride? What if the theme park operator knew others were hurt before on the ride but they deliberately make no mention of it in the warning? This is the true state of facts for many theme park rides.

Sadly, in Florida the big theme parks are legally allowed to keep most ride related injuries forever secret even when the injuries are sustained in the normal operation of the ride and even when the warning mentions nothing of the known prior injury. The parks intentionally withhold from the public information about ride injuries and instead go to great lengths to keep the data secret. Look up Florida Fifth District Court opinions on the subject. You will see the theme parks keep injury data secret and they are not obligated to report injuries except in very limited circumstances (in fact, the local fair is held to a higher injury reporting standard than the big 3 parks). To prove the point out of the multitude of injuries in the lawsuits cited in an Orlando Sentinel article today : "only nine of the 101 ride-related lawsuits found in the Sentinel's review of 2004-08 court cases were reported to the state as accidents when they occurred." The parks keep secret most of the injuries sustained in amusement park ride related injuries.

The theme park industry has cadres of lawyers who are hired to keep the information on ride injuries away from the public. Why would they do that if the rides are as safe as they claim. I have represented children with horrible permanent head injuries and facial scarring, others with broken bones and ruptured discs requiring surgery. All sustained from using the ride as instructed. Tell me where the warning explains those risks. Further on some of the rides the same injuries had been caused to others already on the same ride yet the warning makes no mention of the known danger.

Even after it is proved that the injury was caused by the ride, many times the parks do not do the right thing. Most people just want their medical bills paid but they get stonewalled by the parks. Often these are tourists from out of the country who do not have health insurance for U.S injuries. Other times U.S. health insurance does not cover the injury and so when the parks refuse to pay for even the medical bills indisputably caused by the ride "guests" must then come to a lawyer out of desperation.

The big parks make billions from advertising inviting guests to ride their rides. In turn, when an invited guest heeds all warnings, uses a ride in the manner intended, and yet sustains serious injury on a ride shouldnt the park pay for the damage caused by the ride? In my mind, that is simply the right thing to do.

Ed Normand.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Personal Watercraft Accidents

Ed Normand — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:07:21 GMT

Personal watercraft (PWC) cause many injuries and deaths each year in Florida. Despite mandatory boating education classes and higher age limits for operating PWCs the deaths and injuries still occur at alarming rates. Most of the PWC accidents involve crashes into other PWCs or boats. Some involve tow accidents and drownings from failure to wear life jackets.

Some ideas for safety on a PWC:

Take a boater safety course specifically related to operating a PWC.

Wear a life jacket.

Slow down.

Know your terrain.

Obey all speed limits.

Don't drink and drive.

Look out for swimmers and other boats.

Keep a safe distance from boats and refrain from activities like wake jumping.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

High Schoolers Intentionally Hit Umpire; He Considers Legal Options

Diego Madrigal — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:58:58 GMT

A high school baseball umpire in Georgia is considering taking legal action against two players who orchestrated hitting the umpire on purpose with a pitch. According to reports, the players were upset with the umpire's strike zone and decided to take action- and this time they finally hit their target. Thankfully, the umpire was wearing a mask that absorbed much of the impact from the ball. Even so, the umpire has had to undergo and MRI and is suffering from headaches. Although the players deny they did it intentionally, the video below seems to show that the catcher did not even attempt to catch the pitch.

The players claim that they were mixed up in their signals (the catcher expected a curveball and the pitcher threw a fastball). This excuse seems highly unlikely given the video evidence showing the catcher's actions.

This action actually seems like it was an intentional tort and could cost the young men and their parents many dollars. There at least seems to be a claim for battery and maybe for an intentional infliction of emotional distress, since it would reason that the umpire might be traumatized to ever take in a baseball game again.

What are your thoughts on what these highschoolers did? Some might say that the umpire knew that this was a possibility and therefore should not be able to recover anything. I would something so blatant and heinous such as this should result in some compensation for the umpire because he did not ever expect to have a 90 mph fastball intentionally thrown at his face.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Diego Madrigal