February 24, 2010

Oakville Woman’s Story Shows Importance of Fully Claiming Damages

A recent column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch caught my eye because it underscores the importance of having an experienced Missouri auto accident lawyer involved in your injury case. Columnist Bill McClellan wrote Feb. 21 about Jen Dotson of Oakville, who ran into serious financial trouble after her health insurer refused to cover the cost of an operation intended to alleviate debilitating pain. Dotson was injured in a 2004 car accident that was not her fault. She had sued the at-fault driver, but her settlement was reached before she realized she needed the operation.

The column says Dotson was driving straight through an intersection when someone pulled out and hit her. The other driver’s insurance company paid for repairs to her car, but she was also left with chronic, severe pain from a condition called thoracic outlet syndrome, which is caused by compression of the passageway between the collarbone and the first rib. The pain was so bad that she had to quit her job as a travel agent and go to work in the family business. Dotson sued and eventually settled for enough money to cover her portion of her medical bills.

Unfortunately, the pain continued after Dotson’s settlement. She had two more surgeries -- one to remove a rib, and another for a nerve. Her husband’s employer-based health insurance covered both, but her pain didn’t stop and she was forced to take heavy pain medications. Finally, her doctor referred her to a neurosurgeon who recommended a surgery to implant a spinal cord stimulator. The surgery was a success, but her health insurer refuses to cover the cost -- leaving Dotson and her husband owing $72,900. They cannot pay this debt and are now afraid they’ll lose their home.

The column is about the health insurer’s refusal to pay, despite the surgeon’s claim that he called to pre-authorize it. This is an important and politically relevant issue, but as a St. Louis car crash attorney, I’d like to talk about Dotson’s original settlement. Most people don’t realize that you only get one opportunity to sue over an accident. Once you accept a settlement, you generally must sign a waiver of all future claims. That means it’s essential to include all claims of financial damage in your lawsuit, including claims for future medical care. Dotson and her injury attorney undoubtedly claimed everything they thought she needed at the time, but as time went on, it was clear that her medical needs weren’t over. In cases like this, I advise my clients to delay a lawsuit, as hard as that can be, until a doctor believes their symptoms are fully manifested can make a treatment plan.

Continue reading "Oakville Woman’s Story Shows Importance of Fully Claiming Damages" »

November 9, 2007

Vioxx Settlement the Devil is in the Details

At 4:30 a.m. on November 9, 2007, Merck agreed to a purported $4.85 billion settlement. The agreement is 69 pages and has not yet been released publicly. At a hearing in New Orleans this morning the terms of the settlement were revealed.

(1) This is not a class action settlement. In order for a law firm to participate in the settlement, they have to agree to submit all of their cases through the settlement process;

(2) In order to qualify for payment under the Settlement a claimant has to prove: (a) Proof of ingestion of Vioxx for at least 30 days; and (b) Proof of having a heart attack, Ischemic stroke, or sudden cardiac death within 14 days of taking Vioxx;

Once a client meets these criteria they are guaranteed of receiving a monetary award under the settlement and the client goes to the assessment phase where they are awarded points or actually demerits for cardiac risk factors such as obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, hyperlipedemia, age, etc… The client based on the point system is then awarded a settlement amount by the claims administrator. This claims process is to be completed in 18 months, and if the client believes the points were assessed incorrectly they can appeal to a special master.

If the client doesn't qualify for a monetary award under the settlement, they can then certify that the medical evidence they submitted is all the evidence they have and they can have their case tried to a jury. There is also a requirement of 85% participation of all the cases filed, and the 85% participation requirement only applies to cases filed in the MDL, cases filed in New Jersey, cases filed in California and cases filed in Texas.

This certainly does not look like it will end the litigation, but it is the beginning of the end game, How it will play out will be determined in the next couple of years. Nothing moves quickly in the Mass tort business

September 25, 2007

Illinois Car Crash Settles for $1.5 Million Under Illinois' new law Regarding Serving Alcohol to Minors

A $1.5 million settlement was reached in a car crash for a teen who were seriously injured in a car accident following a party at an equestrian center where alcohol was served to minors. The state Act had taken effect 29 days before the accident under the Illinois Drug or Alcohol Impaired Minor Responsibility Act.

At the party, free kegs of beer were available to all guests and minors were not required to provide identification. After the girls left the party, the driver made an illegal left turn and
crossed the two southbound lanes where the car was hit by a tractor-trailer truck. The injured teen who was in the back seat, was thrown out of the car and suffered serious neurological injuries. The injury is permanent, restricts use of her left hand and leg. None of the other girls was injured.

This law imposes civil liability against persons over 18 who allow minors to drink, if a minor becomes impaired and injures or kills another. Prior to this law neither Missouri nor Illinois recognized what is know as social host liability. This law is a good step toward imposing civil liability on persons who serve alcohol to minors who then injure other people.

I practice law in both Illinois and Missouri and many clients are shocked to find out that they did not have a cause of action under Illinois or Missouri law against someone who provides alcohol to minors who then injure them. The law is based on the assumption that serving alcohol is not the proximate cause of the accident, but the person who caused the accident was the proximate cause. This new law in Illinois serves a good purpose and should be more broadly adopted in other states including Missouri.