Seattle City attorney Tom Carr said the city settled because of the risks posed by taking the case to a jury.  In other words, he believed there was a very high chance that the jury would find the police negligent in engaging in a shootout so close to where a large number of bystanders were positioned.  There were six police officers present and four of them determined it was too dangerous to return gun fired at the armed motorcycle rider.

The bullet that struck Kellner lodged in her lunge and was too dangerous to remove.  So identifying exactly who fired the bullet that hit her was not possible.  However, clearly the angle of her entry wound and position of the police officers who were shooting no doubt indicated one of the policemen likely the source of the bullet that injured Kellner.

Police are put in tough situations and asked to make tough judgment calls.  But they need to protect innocent people first, before apprenhending criminals.  In this case, two officers made the wrong choice and hurt an innocent person.  The city has paid for the mistake, the system has worked it out, and now everyone can move on.

The young girl and her family ate at the Ixtapa Family Mexican Restaurant, 303 91st Ave. NE, on October 13, 2008. The next day she was sent home from school sick, and over the next week she went to the ER three times before being admitted to the hospital. Tests revealed that the young girl was infected with E. coli 0157:H7, which matched the Ixtapa Mexican Restaurant outbreak. The young girl has lost 9 pounds and is too weak to walk, her parents carry her.

The restaurant was shut down by the Snohomish County Health District Officials but reopened yesterday. Those who fell ill report eating at the restaurant from October 2-13.

News reports:

Lawsuit details ordeal of E. coli victim

Family files suit in Lake Stevens E. coli sickness 

Lake Stevens eatery reopens as E. coli suit is filed 

A good example is my client “Joan.” The names have been changed to protect the innocent! Joan has Liberty Mutual car insurance with Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage, which is suppose pays her medical bills from injuries suffered from any car wreck she’s in. A while ago Joan was in a hit n’ run car wreck. She was injured in the wreck and unfortunately the other driver sped off before she realized what was happening.

Joan did not realize the steps she had to go through to get Liberty Mutual to pay her medical bills under her PIP coverage (the steps include calling in an injury claim, completing PIP application and sending bills to Liberty Mutual). Instead she paid the medical bills out her life savings, depleting them completely. A friend referred her to me to help with establishing an Uninsured Motorist claim. When I met with Joan I learned of this and began the process of getting her savings paid back through her PIP coverage. That’s when the fun began!

Initially I did not know a PIP application had not been completed because I had a copy of a letter from the PIP adjuster stating she had received some bills and was waiting for records before making a determination on payment. This is normal and generally only takes a few weeks. This kind of letter does not usually exist unless a PIP application has been received and PIP claim fully opened. Months passed and Liberty Mutual ignored my repeated telephone messages and letters about the payment. Finally, they responded and claimed they did not receive Joan’s PIP application, despite raising no objection like this in the months before hand. Seemed a bit fishy, but I thought let’s just move forward and try to get the money reimbursed.

Joan completed the application and I mailed it as requested. Two more months passed with no reimbursement check arriving. I called again and Liberty Mutual claimed they did not receive the application. It wasn’t returned to me, so under the terms of Washington laws is deemed delivered. So, I  resent the PIP application – this time via fax and mail, so we’ll see what happens. Deny and delay tactics like this seem to be the general policy in effect at Liberty Mutual. Joan’s case is not the first where I’ve seen Liberty Mutual act this way.

Once Liberty Mutual places its corporate policies in place and removes Safeco’s current policies, look out all you Safeco customers. Profits are much more important to Liberty Mutual than its customers. If you have any kind of injury claim in my experience you can expect to fight an uphill battle the whole way. That’s why it’s important to speak with an experience Washington injury attorney after a car accident and get the 411 on your rights before speaking with the insurance company.

If you are the injured victim or family member that recovers money as the result of a personal injury lawsuit or claim – then the money received is not taxed. Under Federal Treasury Regulation § 104(a)(2) Gross Income (potentially taxable income) does not include money (unless punitive damages – which aren’t available under Washington laws) received as the result of personal injury lawsuit /claim settlement, judgment, or verdict.

If you settled your car accident or other Washington injury accident case in the last tax year you will not have to pay taxes on it. You will probably have to report that you received a personal injury settlement or verdict, but no taxes will be charged against it. So when your accountant or tax software asks you about the amount received don’t worry, you won’t pay more taxes by telling the IRS about your injury settlement/verdict money. 

The tax code section reads specifically: “Section 104(a)(2) excludes from gross income the amount of any damages received (whether by suit or agreement) on account of personal injuries or sickness. The term “damages received (whether by suit or agreement)” means an amount received (other than workmen’s compensation) through prosecution of a legal suit or action based upon tort or tort type rights, or through a settlement agreement entered into in lieu of such prosecution.”

Ben Sansone of the Missouri Injury Law Blog had recent post on the same subject. If you live in Missouri you should definitely check out his blog, it is excellent.

In 2004 Mr. Singh went into Providence Everett Medical Center for heart bypass surgery. During the surgery a heart monitor – built by Edwards Lifesciences Corp. – was used. The heart monitor malfunctioned causing a catheter in Mr. Singh’s heart to overheat and badly burn his heart, such that his heart had to be removed.

According to the hospital – Edwards Lifesciences failed to disclose a problem with the monitor. Edwards attempted to shift blame to the hospital by stating the hospital used a frayed cable. The jury determined Edwards Lifesciences was 99.99% at fault and the hospital 0.01%. As a Washington injury attorney I can tell you that when you have multiple defendants that are potentially at fault, it’s usually a good sign when the defendants are blaming each other and not my injured client. The jury went even further and awarded the hospital $310,000 in damages.

Justice seems to have been done and a defective product has been held accountable for the serious injury it caused. I don’t know the specific details of this case, but Washington juries don’t awarded huge verdicts like this without some really bad conduct by the product maker. If I were a betting man, I’d bet that there was evidence that the product maker knew about the problem with the monitor before hand and failed to warn hospitals that use it. Sounds like a John Grisham story line to me – big bad corporation values profits over peoples lives. 

Source: Seattle PI.

A test has been developed by an insurance company doctor, Dr. Paul Lees-Haley, to find people who are faking injuries or over exaggerating the severity of their injuries. The test – called “Fake Bad Scale” – claims to find injury victims who are lying about the severity of their injuries. Which would be all and good if it was proven to be scientifically accurate – it isn’t. There is a lot of controversy and disagreement amongst the scientific community regarding the tests reliability and accuracy in finding fakers (a.k.a malingerers).

An article in the Wall Street Journal last week shed some light on this latest battle between greedy insurance companies and good guys like me, otherwise know as plaintiff’s attorneys. The test is commonly given as part of a psychological exam as a sub-part of the MMPI. Unfortunately, nearly everyone who takes it can be considered a faker – according to leading critic Dr. James Butcher. Great for insurance companies, bad for you the injury victim!

The test asks 43 true or false questions like “My sleep is fitful and disturbed” or “I have nightmares every few nights.” For someone suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder these can be legitimately true statements, but the test counts two points towards classifying you as a faker. Other test questions are “I have very few headaches” or “I have few or no pains.” If you suffer from chronic headaches you would say false, and again the test would count two more points towards labeling you a faker.

The author of this test, Dr. Lees-Haley over the last 18 years has received 95% of his work from defense attorneys representing insurance companies. I also find it very interesting that Dr. Lees-Haley paid to have his faker test published in a small medical journal in an attempt to buy his test instant creditability.

Luckily for injury victims across the country judges have often been persuaded to not allow this test into evidence in court cases. Whenever there is a genuine controversy surrounding the scientific soundness of a test – courts are generally suppose to forbid its use as evidence.

I have not had a case where Fake Bad Scale has raised its ugly head. But I’m sure its only a matter of time. Let’s hope that our Washington judges – if or when faced with deciding whether to allow the use of the Fake Bad test against an injury victim – choose on the side of caution. Choosing to protect injury victims over the greedy insurance company’s attempts buy excuses for failing to pay legitimate injury claims should be any easy choice in my biased opinion.

The best course of action if your insurance company is calling you a faker (a.k.a. malingerer) or requesting an “independent” psychological exam is to speak with an experienced Washington injury attorney pronto. Before you agree to this kind of testing you should absolutely know your rights!

Jodi submitted a claim shortly after Michael’s death. The Scanlon’s had been paying Michael’s life insurance policy premiums for 10 years and were stunned to receive a rejection letter from CIGNA. A doctor hired by CIGNA had reviewed Michael’s medical records and somehow determined that the fall was caused by a pre-existing heart condition. The doctor went on to say that the pre-existing heart condition was made worse by the blood thinning aspirin he was on – which contributed to his death.

Now, I have not review the medical records or facts surrounding Michael’s fall, but this is unbelievable. This poor family pays premiums on a life insurance policy for 10 years, an autopsy rules Michael’s death an accident, and the accidental fall is the triggering event that ultimately results in his death. To you and me this seems like an open and shut case. How can CIGNA deny payment?

The answer is they most likely can’t. Washington voters recently approved R-67 (aka Fair Insurance Conduct Act), which is a new law aimed at holding insurance companies accountable for their bad faith practices in handling first party insurance claims. First party insurance claims are those that you make against insurance that you have purchased – like life insurance.

CIGNA is going to have to show that its denial is based upon sound medicine – that Michael’s heart condition caused the fall. I not sure how they can determine this based on a medical records review.  Seems to me witnesses to Michael’s fall – if there were any – would have to say something like he was grabbing his chest or arm prior to falling – thus indicating a possible heart attack. Even then the autopsy would have likely revealed damage to the heart from the heart attack – and if bad enough – the coroner would’ve ruled the death by natural causes – heart attack. I’m not a doctor by any means and this is all pure speculation by me, but CIGNA’s story doesn’t really seem to add up.

Jodi’s story strikes at the heart. Not only did she lose her husband to a tragic accident - but the loss was made much worse by CIGNA denying payment on the life insurance policy. CIGNA by forcing Jodi into litigation will cause Jodi to re-live over and over again the painful memory of her husband’s death. Situations like this is why Seattle injury attorneys like me have jobs. Big insurance companies take advantage of the little person by twisting the facts to fit their need and greed for evermore profits.

Luckily for Jodi Scanlon Washington laws are on her side. Jodi has filed her lawsuit under the Fair Insurance Conduct Act. If CIGNA is found to have acted in bad faith they could have to pay triple damages or 1.5 million to Jodi plus her attorney fees and costs of the lawsuit.

If you’re faced with this type of situation or know someone who is – please contact an experienced Washington injury attorney – and get some good advice on your rights.

Source: Seattle Times article, February 15, 2008 by Sonia Krishnan

Many of my clients have found dealing with Allstate on your own is like going a few rounds with Mohammad Ali. There’s a lot of jabs, some body blows and eventually you’re seeing stars wondering what happened. There are numerous stories of how Allstate adjusters have not dealt with people on a level playing field just like the story of attorney Ben Sansone’s client. 

A case in Washington had to reinforce the fact that Allstate cannot tell a Washington car accident victim they don’t need to speak with an attorney because the insurance adjuster is looking out for them and attorneys will only take money out of their pocket. When an insurance company tells someone they’re looking out for them and they don’t need an attorney to review a release of all claims form they want signed – the insurance company is giving legal advice without a license to practice law. That’s illegal – and just not right.

Although I haven’t personally had an insurance company threaten bankruptcy of the at fault driver as a way to force a low settlement — it doesn’t surprise me. An experienced Washington injury attorney should know that a bankruptcy has no effect on the available insurance. This underhanded tactic does not work on experienced injury attorneys, but if it were you — would you know the threat was hollow? I have had several cases were the at fault party went bankrupt, but the insurance coverage was still available and paid despite the bankruptcy. This is definitely a trap for the unwary and another reason you should speak with an experienced Washington injury attorney before speaking with an insurance adjuster.

Or better yet order my free book “The Guide to Washington Injury Cases” by clicking here. The book will give you some good information about the whole Washington car accident claim process before you speak with that pushy insurance adjuster.

The car accident that hurt Marissa so badly was caused by a driver that crossed the I-5 median into oncoming traffic and hit Marissa’s Dodge Spirit head-on. Marissa and her family have sued the driver and Chrysler — the maker of the Dodge Spirit — due to an alleged design flaw. Chrysler’s attorneys are being very aggressive and have subpoenaed Marissa’s MySpace account records including her private blog entries.

Corporation and insurance company lawyers are conducting these kind of “cyber-investigations” more and more. Chrysler believes the information on Marissa’s MySpace page will lead to relevant evidence in her car accident case. Defense attorneys in fact promote these kind of tactics openly as can be found on this defense attorney blog. Corporation and insurance company lawyers are looking for things on your MySpace page that contradict your injury claims or “there could be interesting stuff we’d like a jury to see.”

Kind of makes your stomach turn a little doesn’t it? Anything you put out there on the web could someday be fodder for a jury to decide your fate. Ouch, that’s scary! It’s enough to make you second guess that video from Friday night’s party you were thinking about posting. Defense attorneys have discussed the possibility of subpoenaing your online “friends” as witnesses including using your “friends” access to your page’s private areas, or even trying to become on of your “friends” to spy on you. These kinds of sneaky and underhanded tactics are what big corporations and insurance companies do in an effort to attack your credibility in a car accident case.

You may be asking yourself, is my Facebook or MySpace page in anyway relevant to my car accident? Why should I have to turn over my private account information for something that has no relevance to my car accident injuries? I totally understand that feeling of frustration and it’s what nearly everyone of my clients feels when faced with questions from defense attorneys in areas that seem irrelevant to the car accident.

Rules that apply to Washington car accident lawsuits allow a broad scope of questioning by defendants. This area of questioning is called discovery. During discovery both sides get to ask each other questions that will help find the truth about what happened and how badly you were injured. The rules give a very broad scope of things that can be questioned and discovered about you.  Sometimes this results in over-reaching or requests for stuff that is out of bounds.

The ultimate question is given Washington discovery rules is your MySpace, Facebook or other social network page out of bounds in your Washington car accident lawsuit? Unfortunately, the answer is not clear. In some circumstances your MySpace page may be relevant because it shows you doing things your injuries should not allow you to do. Other times there may be nothing there. The general rule the courts follow is whether the information requested could lead to information that is relevant to the car accident lawsuit. So if there’s a possibility that information requested could lead to information that could be used in your injury case, then a judge is likely to grant access to your MySpace page.

Washington appellate courts have not had an opportunity to address a question regarding access to a person’s MySpace, Facebook or other social network page. However, it is only a matter of time before we see some rulings from the Washington high courts to give this area added guidance. Until then — it’s probably a good idea to speak with an experienced Washington car accident attorney about the effect your MySpace page may have on your car accident case. There are steps that your attorney can take to protect you in certain circumstances.

But for now — BEWARE — you’re private MySpace page may be an open book when you least want or expect it.

The post on  California Personal Injury And Insurance Blog has a link to a funny video about Blue Cross and its denials for pre-existing conditions. Check it out – it’s funny! [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisM6rlhbCQ[/youtube]

Doctors should not be the ones checking up for Blue Cross or any other health insurance company. It violates doctor-patient privilege and undermines patient trust in doctors. Blue Cross has all the tools it needs to check a new members past medical records for pre-existing conditions. Blue Cross is trying to shortcut this process by having doctors do it for them. This is just not right – - and another example of what is wrong with healthcare in America. “Profits over People” seems to be the theme heard again and again!

I wonder which of the current Presidential candidates has a good idea for dealing with this health insurance problem?