Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer - Orlando personal injury lawyer

Helpful Hints In Selecting a Child Car Seat

Ed Normand — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:03:08 GMT

Baby Car Seats - Did you know...

Often parents move their child from a baby car seat to a full-size safety seat too soon. Data from crash-testing reveals that a baby is better protected in a rear-facing seat because the seat gives better support to the baby’s head and neck, and distributes the crash force over a greater area of their body. The general rule of thumb is to wait until your child is at least one-year of age, and weighs at least 20 pounds, before you move your child to a full-size safety seat. If your child weighs more than 20 pounds, but is still under a year of age, it is best to keep him/her in a rear-facing seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), along with car seat safety advocates, now also recommend that babies remain in a rear-facing seat as long as possible, up to the weight limit of the seat. If the weight limit of the seat is 30 pounds, these groups recommend that it is best to keep your child rear-facing until they reach the weight limit of the seat.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Order is Filed on Emergency Hearing in Disney Monorail Crash

Ed Normand — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:16:00 GMT

An emergency court hearing was held on July 14, 2009 in the crash that killed Disney monorail operator Austin Wuennenberg. Although no lawsuit has been filed by the Wuennenberg family, court documents reveal that lawyers for Christine Wuennenberg, mother of Austin Wuennenberg, petitioned the court for a Pure Bill of Discovery, which would allow access to evidence related to the crash. Ms. Wuennenberg’s attorney also requested, in the alternative, that the court grant an Order Preserving Evidence requiring Disney to preserve evidence, as there was reason to believe, based upon public reports, that evidence might be altered or destroyed.

In an order handed down on July 24, 2009, Circuit Judge Cynthia Z. Mackinnon denied the Pure Bill of Discovery requested by Ms. Wuennenberg’s attorneys. In a surprise move, the court also denied the Order Preserving Evidence, which now means, in the words of Ms. Wuennenberg’s petition, that she “will have no adequate remedy at law . . . and . . . will suffer irreparable injury.” The denial by the court is puzzling, as Florida law prohibits Disney from destroying evidence that could be material to any civil litigation. Evidence relating to the crash of the monorail would be material to civil litigation relating to Austin Wuennenberg’s death, and to deny an order requiring Disney to preserve such evidence appears to be inconsistent with Florida law. With evidence such as video recordings, photographs, and audio communications now often stored electronically, it is not unreasonable that a large company such as Disney might eventually re-record over such data. Ordering the preservation of such evidence seems to be the only proper decision in this matter. To its defense, perhaps the Court refused to grant to the order to preserve evidence because it felt that Disney would be subject to sanctions later if, indeed, it destroyed evidence.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Another Worker Dies At Disney

Ed Normand — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:32:20 GMT

With the third employee death at Disney World in the past seven weeks, serious questions are being raised about the safety regulations in place at the Theme Parks in Florida. Attorney Ed Normand of the Orlando law firm of Wooten, Kimbrough, Gibson, Doherty and Normand, P.A. was recently interviewed on Fox News about this troubling pattern of employee deaths. His interview and discussion about the lack of government oversight at theme parks such as Disney World can be found at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/nahz8n

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Unreported Theme Park Injuries

Ed Normand — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:04:35 GMT

We have been blogging a lot about the lack of reporting at the Federal, State and Local level of the injuries that happen at the big theme parks. It turns out that the local fair or a Greyhound bus have stronger inspections, standards and reporting requirements than the big 3 theme park operators do in Florida. In fact, the vast majority of injuries at theme parks are never reported or recorded by any governmental agency.

Lots of folks have chimed in on comments, public and private, who just dont believe that the theme parks have no regulation or reporting of injuries. Attached is a private email to the blog from a woman whose son was allegedly hurt on the way to a ride and you can see how she contends she was treated:

"Subject: Disneyworld
Body: I just saw your piece on the internet about injuries at DisneyWorld. Two years ago, while at Disneyworld with my daughter,her husband and my three grandchildren, it began to pour out so we were heading for a ride that had an awning over it for shelter. My son-in-law slipped on something and fell on top of my then 5 year old grandson. His knee was badly injured and was bleeding quite heavily. I asked the person for first aid assistance and was told no one in the park has first aid equipment and that we would have to take my bleeding grandson through the pouring rain to the front of the park for assistance from their paramedics. You can imagine how incensed I was with this answer. I asked to speak to her supervisor and her supervisor reiterated the same information. My grandson is bleeding heavily and crying hysterically and five of us have to run a mile with him in his dad's arms to some paramedic station that we are not sure where it is located. I put up a fuss and finally they called the paramedics station to come to the ride to adminiter first aid. I tried to notify DisneyWorld of this incident several times but to no avail. They would not return my calls or acknowledge the incident. Fat chance we are returning to DisneyWorld and I tell people all the time. YOU BETTER NOT GET HURT WHILE YOU'RE VISITING THERE."

We do not know her but we have heard of similar complaints. Perhaps if the theme park injures were recorded like every single car accident with injuires is in Florida then these situations could be reduced or eliminated.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

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

Theme Park Oversight Redux

Ed Normand — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:48:48 GMT

Wow did I get a lot of slack for suggesting that, god forbid, the NTSB was justified in investigating the Disney Monorail crash. My point, however, is not to imply that Disney runs an inherently safe or unsafe operation. My point is more, how do we know? Florida and the Federal Government both give the major theme parks in Florida a (no pun intended) virtual free ride when it comes to reporting accidents and injuries. The statutory accident reporting standards and statutory ride inspection systems for the Big Three theme parks in Florida are less than those for the merry go round at the County Fair or the local trolley in tourist town.

My point, therefore, is not that they are unsafe but that really nobody knows. I have sued Disney for injuries allegedly sustained on the Disney transportation system which I know for a fact were never reported by Disney to anyone despite that they knew of the injury immediately. The same is true for lots of lawsuits against the parks on lots of rides. So for everyone out there who comments that they love Disney and therefore it must be safe, my question is: How do you know? I sure don't and I have tried hard to find out. I can look up every injury on a Delta Airlines jet compare it to an American Airlines jet and decide which airline I wish to patronize. I can research public accident reports on pretty much every public bus injury. You just try and find out how many injuries have been alleged to occur on a particular ride. If you can find that out then you are better than any lawyer I know because our judicial system has also recently bent over backwards in local District Court Opinions that protect from discovery the secrecy of the number and type of other accidents at theme parks even in a lawsuit alleging injuries on the same ride or event.

Alas, we are thus stuck with taking the corporations at their word when they say that all they do is good and safe, fun and wonderful. Sounds a bit like our friends the bankers and the insurance companies. "Trust Us." That is why I am just asking for the theme parks to tell us who gets hurt and when and how. This is required in every single car crash in Florida, on every fair ride injury, why not then in the big theme parks? You would think, if the parks are as safe as these commentators shout, that they would proudly blast these statistics all over to show just how safe they are. I mean if there are no injuries, no accidents, then why not tell us? Who knows, they could even have rides with 5 star safety ratings and 4 star ones? I am being silly now, but seriously, with a ride reporting system then, like me, you could decide if you want to risk your little girl getting her face gashed and permanently scarred for life on a ride that does that. I know about that ride because I represented her. You don't because the cases are all made secret when resolved. My daughters won't ride that ride, I know some park employees’ kids won't either, and I just think you should have access to the same knowledge so you can make the same informed choice.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

What is Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Why Should I "Stack It"?

Ed Normand — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:10:23 GMT

With the rising costs of healthcare, serious auto-accident injuries can seriously cost a lot. Fortunately, Florida and 28 other states allow an insurance strategy known as “stacking”. Put bluntly, two policies can literally be “stacked” together in the event of a major injury in an auto accident. One form of this is stacking UM and UIM (uninsured and under-insured) coverages.

Uninsured motorist coverage aids in two ways: 1) if an at-fault driver is not insured to cover your medical and property damages and 2) if you are the victim of an accident commonly known as a “hit and run” where the liable person is not known. In both instances UM coverage will kick in and cover your expenses to a certain limit.

Under-insured motorist coverage is meant to cover the difference between an at-fault driver’s coverage and your UIM coverage. If the liable driver carries a mere 10k in bodily injury (BI) coverage and your UIM exceeds that, then if your injury costs more than driver’s 10k, you will still be thoroughly compensated even though the driver was technically “covered”.

By stacking these coverages you multiply the amount of coverage for these types of unpredictable situations. There are two ways you can “stack” your UM/UIM coverage. The first is by combining the multi-car coverages under the same policy. So say you have three cars covered by X Insurance Co. with 100k/300k, UM/UIM coverage for each. You could have them stacked to cover one incident in the amount of 300k/900k depending on which (UM or UIM) situation applies to the liable driver.

Another way coverage may be stacked under Florida law is through multiple policies. In one example, one spouse may be covered through their place of employment and the other vehicle, elsewhere. Because spouses and immediate family are usually covered under UM/UIM, there is a potential for the two completely separate polices to be stacked.

The only way that this procedure can be barred is by your policy explicitly stating so. Otherwise, there is no limit to the amount of stacking that can occur. If you are involved in a situation where you think stacking may apply to your accident, contact Wooten, Kimbrough, Gibson, Doherty & Normand, P.A.

If you are contemplating what coverage to buy and don't have a clue, give me a call at 407 843 7060 and I will help you out for free. --Ed--

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

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

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