Thursday, December 22, 2011
Legal Tip: Be Prepared for the Unexpected Following an Injury
What can you expect after being injured in an accident? There can be quite a few surprises. Watch this video for a quick explanation.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
New Client Reviews
I'm grateful that my former clients have taken the time to share about their experience working with me. You can read the latest reviews of my legal counsel on Yelp. If you're looking for an experienced personal injury attorney with good judgement and passion for helping injured people receive fair compensation from insurance companies, contact me at jim@sorrels-law.com or call 425-778-8558.
My latest reviews
My latest reviews
10/8/2011Review by William B.Jim handled more than one case for me with great ease, no problem was to difficult for him.Jim &his office staff was friendly & professional they kept me apprised & up to speed on all aspects of my cases.I was more than satisfied with the outcome of all of them. You cant go wrong by uesing his firm.10/25/2011Review by Carlyn G.I hired Jim after he was recommended by an experienced defense attorney. I figured what could be a better recommendation! It turned out to be an excellent recommendation. I had a good case but there were some real holes that threatened the outcome that I felt I deserved. I saw that Jim was concerned about this as well but he came up with a way of presenting it so that it actually strengthened my case. He also counseled me wisely about what points to emphasize and which to avoid. I wasn't convinced at the time but as the process unfolded I saw that his judgement was excellent. Another great thing about Jim Sorrels is his tolerance for the feelings that surface as a hearing approaches. I was very anxious which did not make things easier. Jim did not take it on but stayed calm and tried to reassure me. He met with me before the hearing and went over my case. He had obviously put a lot of thought into the presentation. He had a large timeline display to make my case more understandable to the arbitrator (and to me). He video recorded our meeting so I could watch it at home. At the hearing he was totally "on his feet" and dealt with some challenges from the opposing attorney with insight and humor that drove his points home. His closing summary put it all together, he was totally prepared. The arbitrator's decision was completely in my favor and the award exceeded my expectation. As for Jim's staff, they were terrific all the way through. They ended up handling issues that I didn't realize would become theirs to handle and they kept information organized and everything straight with the insurance company. They were such a good resource for me and they were very much appreciated as a process like this can get pretty overwhelming. Anyone with a personal injury case is in excellent hands with Jim and his staff. They will do everything possible to help get the best possible outcome. As an added benefit, they were considerate and receptive; I never hesitated to call with any question.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
New "Good Catch" Program at Johns Hopkins Prevents Patient Harm
A recent article in Anesthesiology News reports this new and experimental program at Johns Hopkins that greatly improves patient protection:
"A new system that encourages every clinician to report situations that put patients at risk appears to be succeeding. Within 24 months, the new program, based at Johns Hopkins Medicine, in Baltimore, distributed 27 so-called “Good Catch Awards” (Table) to clinicians who reported situations that resulted in changes that were potentially lifesaving, including a national recall of improperly labeled drugs that had caused look-alike medication errors." Read the full article.
The program is already saving lives, and it has the potential to prevent a very large number of medical errors that are very costly to the “medical system.”
The first cost is for the medical services and items that are necessary to try to undo the harm, and some of the medical errors create a life-long need for expensive care. Preventing serious medical mistakes of course avoids the additional legal costs and the reimbursement to patients for their personal human losses.
It remains to be seen whether this can really change the “circle the wagons” mentality that sometimes prevents health care professionals from openly admitting errors and taking immediate measures to correct them.
One hopeful sign is that many harmful medical errors really are “systematic,” because often each individual is performing adequately his/her narrow specialty, and the harm results from a failure to safely coordinate the actions of the several health care professionals involved in critical aspects of patient care.
"A new system that encourages every clinician to report situations that put patients at risk appears to be succeeding. Within 24 months, the new program, based at Johns Hopkins Medicine, in Baltimore, distributed 27 so-called “Good Catch Awards” (Table) to clinicians who reported situations that resulted in changes that were potentially lifesaving, including a national recall of improperly labeled drugs that had caused look-alike medication errors." Read the full article.
The program is already saving lives, and it has the potential to prevent a very large number of medical errors that are very costly to the “medical system.”
The first cost is for the medical services and items that are necessary to try to undo the harm, and some of the medical errors create a life-long need for expensive care. Preventing serious medical mistakes of course avoids the additional legal costs and the reimbursement to patients for their personal human losses.
It remains to be seen whether this can really change the “circle the wagons” mentality that sometimes prevents health care professionals from openly admitting errors and taking immediate measures to correct them.
One hopeful sign is that many harmful medical errors really are “systematic,” because often each individual is performing adequately his/her narrow specialty, and the harm results from a failure to safely coordinate the actions of the several health care professionals involved in critical aspects of patient care.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Keeping Insurance Companies in Check
Read a brief, good example of our laws keeping insurance companies in check. This article explains how "the law now gives insured people in Washington a powerful hammer to use against insurers that unreasonably deny claims."
Source: www.badfaithinsurance.org
Seattle shoe maker vs. Hartford Insurance makes legal history with Insurance Fair Conduct Act.
Seattle shoe manufacturer Australia Unlimited was awarded $5.43 million in damages after a King County Superior Court judge ruled its insurance company, Hartford Insurance, unreasonably and in bad faith denied Australia Unlimiteds insurance claim.
One of the claims in that lawsuit made by Australia Unlimited, creator of the NothinZ brand polymer clogs, was that Hartford violated the Insurance Fair Conduct Act, or IFCA. The IFCA was enacted in 2007, after voters of Washington State adopted it by Referendum 67. The IFCA provides legal remedies for policyholders, including the ability to seek punitive damages in court if their insurance company unreasonably denies their claims or violates regulations governing unfair claims settlement practices.
After a two-week trial, a 12-person jury in this case found Hartford had done exactly that. Although it was enacted nearly four years ago, this appears to be the first lawsuit resulting in damages worth more than a few thousand dollars. Although it had the opportunity to do so, Harford declined to appeal the ruling.
"It’s not clear why there haven’t been more awards under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act," said Brent Beecher of the Seattle law firm Hackett Beecher & Hart, which represented Australia Unlimited. "Many people have speculated about that, but one very reasonable hypothesis is that the threat of triple damages and attorney fees has worked – that is to say, insurers in this state may have actually been properly incentivized by the new law to avoid the kind of behavior exhibited by Hartford in this case."
"The law now gives insured people in Washington a powerful hammer to use against insurers that unreasonably deny claims," Beecher added. "However, the hammer is no real threat unless you swing it when you need to."
In the case of Australia Unlimited, the company was awarded $3.8 million in actual damages in August 2010 after the trial. The jury found Hartford Insurance guilty of acting in bad faith and violating the IFCA. Hartford Insurance severely damaged Australia Unlimited’s business by failing in its duty to defend Australia Unlimited when national giant Crocs, Inc., sued the local shoe maker in 2006, the jury decided.
Last month, King County Superior Court Judge Barbara Mack ruled that under the IFCA Australia Unlimited also was entitled to more than $1.25 million on top of that verdict. In her ruling, Mack described the three-year process as "torturous" for Australia Unlimited and commended its attorneys for their tenacity.
Of the nearly 2,200 IFCA notices filed in Washington since it was enacted, this is believed to be the first resulting in more than trivial damages, said Beecher, who represented Jim Klavano, president of Australia Unlimited, after six other law firms turned the Seattle businessman down.
"When Jim approached us about Hartford’s denial, we knew it was going to be a long, expensive lawsuit," Beecher said. "We also knew Hartford would be able to defend itself with a virtually unlimited war chest. But we were convinced Hartford had wrongly denied Australia Unlimited’s claim, and we were proud to be in Australia Unlimited’s corner. Hartford fought hard for over three years, but the judgment speaks for itself."
For Klavano this case has been long and emotional.
"Most insurance companies count on the high expense of lawyers to deny policy benefits, so most people wouldn’t take on a company like Hartford," Klavano said. "I was only able to fight Hartford because Jim and Brent Beecher understood my policy and partnered with me."
Source: www.badfaithinsurance.org
Seattle shoe maker vs. Hartford Insurance makes legal history with Insurance Fair Conduct Act.
Seattle shoe manufacturer Australia Unlimited was awarded $5.43 million in damages after a King County Superior Court judge ruled its insurance company, Hartford Insurance, unreasonably and in bad faith denied Australia Unlimiteds insurance claim.
One of the claims in that lawsuit made by Australia Unlimited, creator of the NothinZ brand polymer clogs, was that Hartford violated the Insurance Fair Conduct Act, or IFCA. The IFCA was enacted in 2007, after voters of Washington State adopted it by Referendum 67. The IFCA provides legal remedies for policyholders, including the ability to seek punitive damages in court if their insurance company unreasonably denies their claims or violates regulations governing unfair claims settlement practices.
After a two-week trial, a 12-person jury in this case found Hartford had done exactly that. Although it was enacted nearly four years ago, this appears to be the first lawsuit resulting in damages worth more than a few thousand dollars. Although it had the opportunity to do so, Harford declined to appeal the ruling.
"It’s not clear why there haven’t been more awards under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act," said Brent Beecher of the Seattle law firm Hackett Beecher & Hart, which represented Australia Unlimited. "Many people have speculated about that, but one very reasonable hypothesis is that the threat of triple damages and attorney fees has worked – that is to say, insurers in this state may have actually been properly incentivized by the new law to avoid the kind of behavior exhibited by Hartford in this case."
"The law now gives insured people in Washington a powerful hammer to use against insurers that unreasonably deny claims," Beecher added. "However, the hammer is no real threat unless you swing it when you need to."
In the case of Australia Unlimited, the company was awarded $3.8 million in actual damages in August 2010 after the trial. The jury found Hartford Insurance guilty of acting in bad faith and violating the IFCA. Hartford Insurance severely damaged Australia Unlimited’s business by failing in its duty to defend Australia Unlimited when national giant Crocs, Inc., sued the local shoe maker in 2006, the jury decided.
Last month, King County Superior Court Judge Barbara Mack ruled that under the IFCA Australia Unlimited also was entitled to more than $1.25 million on top of that verdict. In her ruling, Mack described the three-year process as "torturous" for Australia Unlimited and commended its attorneys for their tenacity.
Of the nearly 2,200 IFCA notices filed in Washington since it was enacted, this is believed to be the first resulting in more than trivial damages, said Beecher, who represented Jim Klavano, president of Australia Unlimited, after six other law firms turned the Seattle businessman down.
"When Jim approached us about Hartford’s denial, we knew it was going to be a long, expensive lawsuit," Beecher said. "We also knew Hartford would be able to defend itself with a virtually unlimited war chest. But we were convinced Hartford had wrongly denied Australia Unlimited’s claim, and we were proud to be in Australia Unlimited’s corner. Hartford fought hard for over three years, but the judgment speaks for itself."
For Klavano this case has been long and emotional.
"Most insurance companies count on the high expense of lawyers to deny policy benefits, so most people wouldn’t take on a company like Hartford," Klavano said. "I was only able to fight Hartford because Jim and Brent Beecher understood my policy and partnered with me."
Monday, August 1, 2011
Cell Phones Cause Auto Accidents
Cell phone use causes an increasing number of auto accidents every year. It's now considered a primary offense in Washington state and will cost you $124 if ticketed. This blog post from Bellevue-based Rubinstein Law Offices nicely summarizes the dangers that distracted drivers face while using their cell phones:
"Being distracted while driving a vehicle is a dangerous, yet commonplace occurrence. In fact, it is one of the top reasons car accidents occur. According to the Seattle Times in 2009, 6,000 people were killed and over 500,000 injured in car accidents due to distracted driving in the US.
In 2009, Washington state legislators responded to the epidemic rise in distracted driving related accidents and passed a series of laws that have made it illegal to drive while talking, text messaging, or otherwise operating a cell phone, imposing a traffic fine of $124.00.
They have also recently increased the level of offense from a secondary offense to a primary offense.
This means drivers can now be pulled over for visibly handling a cell phone while driving; and the police are not just enforcing the new law on highways. Police are heavily patrolling local roads throughout Seattle, Bellevue and the surrounding areas too. However, Washington lawmakers have made it legal for drivers to talk “hands free” by using approved Bluetooth ® devices.
Taking your eyes off the road for even an instant can endanger your life and the lives of those around you. When driving, refrain from engaging in distracting activities such as using a cell phone or turning around to talk to people in the back seat. So whether you are commuting on Interstate 405, dragging along Bellevue Way, or simply driving to the grocery store, by paying attention to the road you help keep Washington’s roads safe."
"Being distracted while driving a vehicle is a dangerous, yet commonplace occurrence. In fact, it is one of the top reasons car accidents occur. According to the Seattle Times in 2009, 6,000 people were killed and over 500,000 injured in car accidents due to distracted driving in the US.
In 2009, Washington state legislators responded to the epidemic rise in distracted driving related accidents and passed a series of laws that have made it illegal to drive while talking, text messaging, or otherwise operating a cell phone, imposing a traffic fine of $124.00.
They have also recently increased the level of offense from a secondary offense to a primary offense.
This means drivers can now be pulled over for visibly handling a cell phone while driving; and the police are not just enforcing the new law on highways. Police are heavily patrolling local roads throughout Seattle, Bellevue and the surrounding areas too. However, Washington lawmakers have made it legal for drivers to talk “hands free” by using approved Bluetooth ® devices.
Taking your eyes off the road for even an instant can endanger your life and the lives of those around you. When driving, refrain from engaging in distracting activities such as using a cell phone or turning around to talk to people in the back seat. So whether you are commuting on Interstate 405, dragging along Bellevue Way, or simply driving to the grocery store, by paying attention to the road you help keep Washington’s roads safe."
Monday, June 6, 2011
Traumatic Brain Injuries - A Growing Concern for Vets
This article on traumatic brain injuries (TMIs) is one of many that have already been written, and will be written in the future because it is a huge concern for the Army – and our country. One of the grim benefits for society is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, due to the extensive use of IEDs, will force the Army to learn a great deal more about non-catastrophic TBI. For every case of a person with a crushed skull or brain-penetrating wounds there are probably 100 cases where the patient walks, talks and looks normal, but whose brain is injured. While the medical providers classify these TBIs as either mild or moderate, they are anything but that for the patient. It has become a not-so-hidden epidemic among service men and women in war zones. Not too long ago the Army began installing dosimeters in combat helmets, devices that measure the rate at which the head is accelerated in high energy events. The Army has also been working with a new blood test that will produce signs of acute brain injury, signs that can only be detected within the day or two after the event. America is going to have to embrace hundreds of thousands of veterans who were brain-injured in explosions, and find the best ways to help them function in their civilian lives. It is going to be a major health issue for our country for a long time to come.
Monday, May 23, 2011
How Much Time Do I Have to Hire a Lawyer After an Accident?
This is a common question among people who have been injured as a result of being involved in some kind of accident. I'm happy to offer answers to other general questions about the law and how it relates to auto accidents and insurance claims, so feel free to leave a question in the comments field. below.
Question: How long do I have to seek an attorney after an accident before I jeapordize a potential insurance claim?
Answer: Almost without exception, a mentally competent adult who suffers an injury must either resolve the claim or successfully commence a lawsuit within three years of the injury. The three-year ‘clock’ for injured children does not start to run until they reach the age of majority (18 in the State of Washington). Waiting that long to get legal advice is almost always a very damaging mistake for several reasons, one of which is that the attorney has no realistic chance to negotiate before having to start a lawsuit, with all the time and expense that goes with it. However, the case for compensation is potentially jeopardized the most EARLY in the process. That is why contacting an attorney very soon, just to understand the legal lay of the land, is usually a smart thing to do. Most attorneys will be happy to give basic advice on how to locate and preserve critical evidence that will be needed later when the insurance company says it does not think you will be able to prove your claim and offer practically nothing.
Question: How long do I have to seek an attorney after an accident before I jeapordize a potential insurance claim?
Answer: Almost without exception, a mentally competent adult who suffers an injury must either resolve the claim or successfully commence a lawsuit within three years of the injury. The three-year ‘clock’ for injured children does not start to run until they reach the age of majority (18 in the State of Washington). Waiting that long to get legal advice is almost always a very damaging mistake for several reasons, one of which is that the attorney has no realistic chance to negotiate before having to start a lawsuit, with all the time and expense that goes with it. However, the case for compensation is potentially jeopardized the most EARLY in the process. That is why contacting an attorney very soon, just to understand the legal lay of the land, is usually a smart thing to do. Most attorneys will be happy to give basic advice on how to locate and preserve critical evidence that will be needed later when the insurance company says it does not think you will be able to prove your claim and offer practically nothing.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
New Proposed Law Kicks Injured Workers to the Curb
While we are usually overwhelmed by the barrage of incoming notices, demands, warnings, etc., this short Seattle Times editorial is on a topic important to everyone who wants to be sure injured workers are not kicked to the curb and, more generally, that Washington should be a place where the average working person is not treated as a second class citizen.
While real people face daily challenges that leave them exhausted and in bed by 9 p.m., corporations and insurance companies never sleep. They have lobbyists on the payroll 24/7 and are always pushing new laws that would essentially gut injured worker support programs.
The new law on the table right now would eliminate support that is based on an individual worker's medical needs by offering financially desperate workers a ‘cash buy out’ of all future benefits, no matter how long the injuries actually last. It reminds me of the cartoons where an insurance company adjuster is having an injured person sign a release of all claims while he’s still hanging upside down in his crushed vehicle.
This Seattle Times editorial nicely summarizes the proposed “improvement” in the injured worker support program.
While real people face daily challenges that leave them exhausted and in bed by 9 p.m., corporations and insurance companies never sleep. They have lobbyists on the payroll 24/7 and are always pushing new laws that would essentially gut injured worker support programs.
The new law on the table right now would eliminate support that is based on an individual worker's medical needs by offering financially desperate workers a ‘cash buy out’ of all future benefits, no matter how long the injuries actually last. It reminds me of the cartoons where an insurance company adjuster is having an injured person sign a release of all claims while he’s still hanging upside down in his crushed vehicle.
This Seattle Times editorial nicely summarizes the proposed “improvement” in the injured worker support program.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
"Prehabilitation" - the New Norm for Accident Victims
The article below, published in Wolters Kluwer Health is important for everyone - especially for people who need a knee replacement because someone else carelessly injured them.
Our law puts a duty on the accident victim to “mitigate” his or her damages by doing reasonable things that will help them recover from the injury. It’s a big gray area, but I can already hear insurance companies blame their customer’s victim by arguing that the victim should have “rehabbed” themselves in the manner this article suggests.
One more reason why, if there is such a thing as reincarnation, I want to come back as an insurance company.
Below is an exerpt. Click here to read the full article.
Philadelphia, PA (March 1, 2011) - A comprehensive "prehabilitation" exercise program for patients with severe knee arthritis can improve strength and functional ability before knee replacement surgery, reports a study in the February issue of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
The physical gains from exercise before knee replacement may translate into improved recovery after surgery, suggests the new study by Ann M. Swank, Ph.D., CSCS, and colleagues of University of Louisville, Ky.
The study included 71 patients scheduled for knee replacement surgery because of severe osteoarthritis that could not be managed with pain medications. One group was randomly assigned to a comprehensive prehabilitation program, consisting of light resistance training, flexibility and step exercise, and light walking.
Patients in this "pre-rehab" group exercised three times per week, in the clinic and at home, for four to eight weeks before knee replacement surgery. Patients in the comparison group received standard preoperative care, with instructions to continue their usual activities. The two groups were compared for knee strength and performance on standard functional tests.
Our law puts a duty on the accident victim to “mitigate” his or her damages by doing reasonable things that will help them recover from the injury. It’s a big gray area, but I can already hear insurance companies blame their customer’s victim by arguing that the victim should have “rehabbed” themselves in the manner this article suggests.
One more reason why, if there is such a thing as reincarnation, I want to come back as an insurance company.
Below is an exerpt. Click here to read the full article.
Philadelphia, PA (March 1, 2011) - A comprehensive "prehabilitation" exercise program for patients with severe knee arthritis can improve strength and functional ability before knee replacement surgery, reports a study in the February issue of The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
The physical gains from exercise before knee replacement may translate into improved recovery after surgery, suggests the new study by Ann M. Swank, Ph.D., CSCS, and colleagues of University of Louisville, Ky.
The study included 71 patients scheduled for knee replacement surgery because of severe osteoarthritis that could not be managed with pain medications. One group was randomly assigned to a comprehensive prehabilitation program, consisting of light resistance training, flexibility and step exercise, and light walking.
Patients in this "pre-rehab" group exercised three times per week, in the clinic and at home, for four to eight weeks before knee replacement surgery. Patients in the comparison group received standard preoperative care, with instructions to continue their usual activities. The two groups were compared for knee strength and performance on standard functional tests.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Test Your Accident Acumen
Preventable or
Non-Preventable?
Non-Preventable?
Take this quiz to find out if you could have avoided these collisions.
The following scenarios are based on National Safety Council guidelines and actual collisions documented by insurance companies and fleet administrators. Check your grasp of your responsibilities as a driver by giving your opinion as to whether you, as the driver of the blue vehicle, could have prevented the collision. Make a note of your answers, and then compare them to the explanations.
1. You're stopped in the fast lane in stop-and-go traffic. The traffic starts to move again, and you reach 20 miles per hour, trailing the vehicle ahead of you by 20 feet. A car slightly ahead and to your right suddenly darts into your lane without signaling. You apply the brakes, but hit the car's left rear bumper.
Preventable or Non-preventable?
2. You're in the right lane approaching an intersection with your right turn signal on and a red car is about 50 feet behind you. You have a red light, but right turns are allowed on red. You stop to let a car in the cross street go by, and then begin to turn. Part way through the turn, the red car veers onto the shoulder to avoid rearending you and hits your right rear passenger door.
Preventable or Non-preventable?
3. You're driving a few minutes after sunset on a two-lane, country road with unpaved shoulders. You're going 5 mph under the speed limit with your headlights on. Far ahead, a car coming toward you with its headlights off is passing a pickup truck. The twilight makes it hard for you to judge how far away the car is. You maintain your speed and position in the lane, but it takes the car longer than you expected to pull completely back into the other lane, and your cars collide.
Preventable or Non-preventable?
4. Considering that close to 100 percent of the miles we ever drive are moving forward, it's no wonder that cars are built to travel better in that direction than to the rear. Forward motion takes advantage of a feature of vehicle suspension called "caster," which makes your car more stable, but does just the opposite in reverse, making your vehicle harder to control. The faster you go in reverse, the more unstable your vehicle becomes.
Preventable or Non-preventable?
5. You're the only car on an undivided, four-lane road, obeying the speed limit at 50 mph. From the right, an eighth of a mile ahead, a vehicle pulls out of a cross street and illegally stops in the middle of the road, partially blocking both lanes in your direction. Since you see no oncoming traffic beyond the intersection, you expect the driver to promptly finish crossing the road, and so maintain your speed.
But as you near the intersection, the car still hasn't moved. You hit the brakes and swerve toward the right, but spin out of control and hit the other car.
But as you near the intersection, the car still hasn't moved. You hit the brakes and swerve toward the right, but spin out of control and hit the other car.
Preventable or Non-preventable?
Answers
1. Preventable. At 20 miles per hour, you were too close to the vehicle ahead of you. The proper trailing distance was 60 feet, which would be a two-second gap. By following too closely, you didn't leave enough space for the red car to complete its move or for you to stop without impact.
2. Non-Preventable. You obeyed all traffic laws and were aware of your surroundings. The other driver failed to maintain safe following distance, which is why he had to try to pass you on the right to avoid the collision.
3. Preventable. You had the right of way, but didn't take any precautions to avoid the accident. Proper actions would have included slowing down, honking, flashing your high beams, or moving as far to the right as possible to give the other vehicle room to maneuver.
4. Non-Preventable. With two cars out of control ahead of you and heavy traffic preventing a lane change, slowing down quickly was your best bet. By maintaining a safe following distance you avoided hitting the car in front of you. Too bad the same can't be said for the driver behind you.
5. Preventable. It was illegal for the other driver to stop in the middle of the road, but you had plenty of time (in fact, nine seconds) to slow down or steer away from the vehicle to avoid the crash. Spinning out of control meant you waited to the last second to react.
*Sources:National Safety Council, www.auto-insurance-claim-advice.com, New Mexico Department of Public Education, State Farm Insurance
Monday, March 7, 2011
Sovereign Immunity Protects Government But Harms All of Us
In a recent Seattle Times article guest columnist Mickey Gendler argues that a proposal which gives special legal protections to state government when its negligent conduct results in harm to citizens should be rejected. Agreed!
Here's the story:
THE Washington state Legislature is currently considering special legal protections for state government when its reckless and careless conduct inflicts preventable harms and injuries onto the people of our state.
The Seattle Times has published editorials and a column by Attorney General Rob McKenna endorsing these proposals. It's ironic that my case has been cited to support the concept of sovereign immunity that I personally oppose.
Proponents of special protections for government argue that the state gets sued even when it follows all the rules. This is categorically false.
In our legal system, government is never judged on any failures or bad choices except for its own. The legal standard is that unless an injury would not have occurred but for the government's negligence, the government is not liable. Without meeting this standard, there is zero liability assessed against the government. It is deliberately deceptive to say otherwise. For the government to be liable, it must be directly responsible for the injury. Any claim against the government that cannot meet this standard is dismissed.
My case is a great example of how government accountability is an important catalyst to change government behavior and fix dangerous conditions to make all of us safer. I sustained a life-changing spinal cord injury due to a defective road condition. The state knew the road was defective and dangerous because of a similar crash that occurred there but did nothing to correct it. The state Legislature is now considering whether to cap damage-award limits at $1 million to $2 million, calling these caps "very generous." But the state admitted that my future medical expenses alone will exceed that cap. McKenna even called my settlement "appropriate" because the state "erred." McKenna added, "If the state messes up, then someone who is harmed ought to be compensated by the state."
The same state official who supports changing the law to deny victims like me even their medical expenses recently agreed that the state should pay when it damages property. Property should not have greater protection against government wrongdoing than life and health. Just recently the Seattle Times editorial board praised a $10 million settlement as a wise government decision where egregious acts by police caused a catastrophic brain injury and paralysis, emphasizing that the case should lead to changes in police training and behavior. Two years after my crash, the state fixed the defective road condition for a mere $7,000.
Numerous bills have been circulating in the Legislature to give immunity to various state agencies where they have failed to do their job. In fact, the Legislature is still examining the possibility of capping damages for cases like mine as lawmakers move through budget negotiations. This is the wrong way to go.
Aggressive risk-management and loss-prevention programs are the best deterrent to preventable injuries and harm to innocent citizens. It's also the best way to save taxpayers' money. In 2003 and 2004 when these programs were modeled after best practices from private and public sector experience, costs dropped an astonishing 75 percent in one biennium, and stayed in that range for five years. Only when that emphasis on loss prevention faded, did these costs start to rise — costs driven by preventable and egregious harms that the state was responsible for.
We need to insist our state government works to prevent injuries and suffering as the means to reduce these costs and not relinquish our power to hold government responsible under the law.
Thanks to Mickey Gendler for writing this important article. Mike is an attorney in Seattle.
Here's the story:
THE Washington state Legislature is currently considering special legal protections for state government when its reckless and careless conduct inflicts preventable harms and injuries onto the people of our state.
The Seattle Times has published editorials and a column by Attorney General Rob McKenna endorsing these proposals. It's ironic that my case has been cited to support the concept of sovereign immunity that I personally oppose.
Proponents of special protections for government argue that the state gets sued even when it follows all the rules. This is categorically false.
In our legal system, government is never judged on any failures or bad choices except for its own. The legal standard is that unless an injury would not have occurred but for the government's negligence, the government is not liable. Without meeting this standard, there is zero liability assessed against the government. It is deliberately deceptive to say otherwise. For the government to be liable, it must be directly responsible for the injury. Any claim against the government that cannot meet this standard is dismissed.
My case is a great example of how government accountability is an important catalyst to change government behavior and fix dangerous conditions to make all of us safer. I sustained a life-changing spinal cord injury due to a defective road condition. The state knew the road was defective and dangerous because of a similar crash that occurred there but did nothing to correct it. The state Legislature is now considering whether to cap damage-award limits at $1 million to $2 million, calling these caps "very generous." But the state admitted that my future medical expenses alone will exceed that cap. McKenna even called my settlement "appropriate" because the state "erred." McKenna added, "If the state messes up, then someone who is harmed ought to be compensated by the state."
The same state official who supports changing the law to deny victims like me even their medical expenses recently agreed that the state should pay when it damages property. Property should not have greater protection against government wrongdoing than life and health. Just recently the Seattle Times editorial board praised a $10 million settlement as a wise government decision where egregious acts by police caused a catastrophic brain injury and paralysis, emphasizing that the case should lead to changes in police training and behavior. Two years after my crash, the state fixed the defective road condition for a mere $7,000.
Numerous bills have been circulating in the Legislature to give immunity to various state agencies where they have failed to do their job. In fact, the Legislature is still examining the possibility of capping damages for cases like mine as lawmakers move through budget negotiations. This is the wrong way to go.
Aggressive risk-management and loss-prevention programs are the best deterrent to preventable injuries and harm to innocent citizens. It's also the best way to save taxpayers' money. In 2003 and 2004 when these programs were modeled after best practices from private and public sector experience, costs dropped an astonishing 75 percent in one biennium, and stayed in that range for five years. Only when that emphasis on loss prevention faded, did these costs start to rise — costs driven by preventable and egregious harms that the state was responsible for.
We need to insist our state government works to prevent injuries and suffering as the means to reduce these costs and not relinquish our power to hold government responsible under the law.
Thanks to Mickey Gendler for writing this important article. Mike is an attorney in Seattle.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Insurance Company Refuses to Pay $50,000 Charity Prize Money
Typically uncool behavior for usually unfair insurance companies...
From NBCSports.com:
A fan who made an incredible shot for charity at an Indiana Ice minor league hockey game promotion will not get the chance to give his prize money to charity, because an insurance company deemed the shot illegal. Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life approves.
Richard Marsh hit the 3-inch-diameter puck an estimated 175 feet into a target slightly larger than 3 inches wide, winning the $50,000 prize in the team’s “Hockey for Heart” promotion for St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana. Making this an even better ending, Marsh had announced before the shot that he would donate all of the money to St. Vincent Heart Center if he won.
The promotion was sponsored by All State Insurance, but a third-party insurance company hired by the ice arena was responsible for the payout.
That company — which remains unnamed — voided the payout, ruling that Marsh had released the shot over the designated starting line, which was against the rules.
Read the full story and watch the 'unlucky' shot.
From NBCSports.com:
A fan who made an incredible shot for charity at an Indiana Ice minor league hockey game promotion will not get the chance to give his prize money to charity, because an insurance company deemed the shot illegal. Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life approves.
Richard Marsh hit the 3-inch-diameter puck an estimated 175 feet into a target slightly larger than 3 inches wide, winning the $50,000 prize in the team’s “Hockey for Heart” promotion for St. Vincent Heart Center of Indiana. Making this an even better ending, Marsh had announced before the shot that he would donate all of the money to St. Vincent Heart Center if he won.
The promotion was sponsored by All State Insurance, but a third-party insurance company hired by the ice arena was responsible for the payout.
That company — which remains unnamed — voided the payout, ruling that Marsh had released the shot over the designated starting line, which was against the rules.
Read the full story and watch the 'unlucky' shot.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Tips from Last Week's Seminar: Handling Your Own Insurance Claim 101
Thanks to those of you who joined me and my staff last week for the free seminar, Handling Your Own Insurance Claim 101. My aim was to outline the basics of what you must know if you have been involved in an accident.
If you weren't able to make it last week, listen to Tips 1 and 2 below.
Tip 1: Remember that the insurance company is your adversary.
Injury Insurance Claims 101: Tips Part 1
Tip 2: Remember to preserve the evidence.
Injury Insurance Claims 101: Tips Part 2
If you weren't able to make it last week, listen to Tips 1 and 2 below.
Tip 1: Remember that the insurance company is your adversary.
Injury Insurance Claims 101: Tips Part 1
Tip 2: Remember to preserve the evidence.
Injury Insurance Claims 101: Tips Part 2
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Stars Don't Align for Allstate
Allstate Apologizes for Study on Astrological Signs
By Ameet Sachdev
What was supposed to be a light-hearted look at a link between car accidents and astrology has turned into a public-relations misstep for Allstate Insurance.
The Northbrook-based insurer issued an apology Saturday for a study it released two days earlier that rated the safest drivers based on their Zodiac signs.Its 2010 claims data showed that Virgos were the worst drivers. The insurer found that Virgos were 700 percent more likely to be in a car accident in the last year than Scorpios.
Scorpios were involved in only 1.5 percent of accidents last year, making them the best drivers on the road, Allstate said in the press release. The rest of the list, from best to worst drivers, was Ophiuchus, Cancer, Aquarius, Libra, Aries, Capricorn, Gemini, Sagittarius, Pisces, Taurus, Leo and Virgo.
Allstate said the study was intended to be for “entertainment purposes only”, but people reading about the study online on blogs and news outlets such as the Chicago Tribune took it seriously.
The insurer said Saturday that the study caused confusion “around whether astrological signs are part of the underwriting process.” To correct what it said were misperceptions, Allstate had to state the obvious:
“Astrological signs have absolutely no role in how we base coverage and set rates. Rating by astrology would not be actuarially sound.”
The company also removed the study from its online newsroom.
By Ameet Sachdev
What was supposed to be a light-hearted look at a link between car accidents and astrology has turned into a public-relations misstep for Allstate Insurance.
The Northbrook-based insurer issued an apology Saturday for a study it released two days earlier that rated the safest drivers based on their Zodiac signs.Its 2010 claims data showed that Virgos were the worst drivers. The insurer found that Virgos were 700 percent more likely to be in a car accident in the last year than Scorpios.
Scorpios were involved in only 1.5 percent of accidents last year, making them the best drivers on the road, Allstate said in the press release. The rest of the list, from best to worst drivers, was Ophiuchus, Cancer, Aquarius, Libra, Aries, Capricorn, Gemini, Sagittarius, Pisces, Taurus, Leo and Virgo.
Allstate said the study was intended to be for “entertainment purposes only”, but people reading about the study online on blogs and news outlets such as the Chicago Tribune took it seriously.
The insurer said Saturday that the study caused confusion “around whether astrological signs are part of the underwriting process.” To correct what it said were misperceptions, Allstate had to state the obvious:
“Astrological signs have absolutely no role in how we base coverage and set rates. Rating by astrology would not be actuarially sound.”
The company also removed the study from its online newsroom.
Monday, January 24, 2011
No Special Protections to Negligent Govt. Agencies
This week The Columbian published an excellent article on the principle that government must be accountable legally for the harm it directly causes to its citizens - it is a fundamental principle of our revolutionary history and the American republic.
Here are some good excerpts from the piece Local View: Courts keep failures by state agencies in check, by Jesse Magaña and Jenny Wieland.
"On Dec. 30, The Columbian ran an editorial endorsing special legal protections for state government agencies whose negligent actions or inactions cause harm to citizens. As victims’ representatives, we strongly object to this proposal. The egregious part of this editorial is that it assumes state government gets sued just because it has “deep pockets,” and that somehow jurors see it as an easy target. Any honest assessment of the court system will quickly demonstrate that this is simply wrong."
"Washington already has strong laws against frivolous lawsuits. This ensures that lawsuits are based on solid facts and law or they are dismissed. It is not true, and perhaps deliberately deceptive, to say that government can be liable even when it did nothing wrong."
"Behind the payouts are families and individuals whose lives have been shattered by the reckless or careless actions of the government. And behind these cases are citizen taxpayers who carefully considered the merits and facts of these cases as jurors."
"The concept of providing special protections to negligent government agencies ignores our fundamental concept of checks and balances. "
"We have three separate branches of government for a reason. When government runs amok, our citizens hold the ultimate power of accountability in their hands under our civil justice system. When we provide special protections for the wrongdoer, we victimize innocent victims twice."
Here are some good excerpts from the piece Local View: Courts keep failures by state agencies in check, by Jesse Magaña and Jenny Wieland.
"On Dec. 30, The Columbian ran an editorial endorsing special legal protections for state government agencies whose negligent actions or inactions cause harm to citizens. As victims’ representatives, we strongly object to this proposal. The egregious part of this editorial is that it assumes state government gets sued just because it has “deep pockets,” and that somehow jurors see it as an easy target. Any honest assessment of the court system will quickly demonstrate that this is simply wrong."
"Washington already has strong laws against frivolous lawsuits. This ensures that lawsuits are based on solid facts and law or they are dismissed. It is not true, and perhaps deliberately deceptive, to say that government can be liable even when it did nothing wrong."
"Behind the payouts are families and individuals whose lives have been shattered by the reckless or careless actions of the government. And behind these cases are citizen taxpayers who carefully considered the merits and facts of these cases as jurors."
"The concept of providing special protections to negligent government agencies ignores our fundamental concept of checks and balances. "
"We have three separate branches of government for a reason. When government runs amok, our citizens hold the ultimate power of accountability in their hands under our civil justice system. When we provide special protections for the wrongdoer, we victimize innocent victims twice."
Friday, January 21, 2011
Top Safe Auto Picks for 2011
The Institute for Highway Safety recently issued their list of the safest autos and SUVs for 2011. To determine crashworthiness — how well a vehicle protects its occupants in a crash — the Institute rates vehicles good, acceptable, marginal, or poor based on performance in high-speed front and side crash tests, a rollover test, plus evaluations of seat/head restraints for protection against neck injuries in rear impacts.
To earn Top Safety Pick for 2011 a vehicle must have good ratings in all four Institute tests. In addition, the winning vehicles must offer electronic stability control.
Check out the list of Top Safety Auto Picks. See how your wheels fare.
To earn Top Safety Pick for 2011 a vehicle must have good ratings in all four Institute tests. In addition, the winning vehicles must offer electronic stability control.
Check out the list of Top Safety Auto Picks. See how your wheels fare.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Free Event: Handling Your Injury Insurance Claim 101
with James S. Sorrels, Attorney
If you have been injured in an accident, join me for a free, informal discussion where you can learn on how to handle the claims process, tips on how to communicate with insurance companies, and how to avoid common insurance company tactics designed to undermine legitimate claims.
I’m an experienced attorney, and helping injured people get a fair shake is what I do every day. There’s no charge or pressure. Come learn what you need to know to stay on the right track toward achieving fair compensation for your injury. Light refreshments will be served.
When
Tuesday, February 1st
6-7 pm
Where
The Sunset Building
23607 Highway 99, Suite 3A, Edmonds, 98026
Plenty of free parking behind the building
Cost
Free
RSVP and Questions
Or call: 425-778-8558
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Goods: Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America
The American Association for Justice (AAJ) recently asked their researchers to identify the worst insurance companies for consumers in the United States.
Researchers undertook a comprehensive investigation of thousands of court documents, SEC and FBI records, state insurance department investigations and complaints, news accounts from across the country, and the testimony and depositions of former insurance agents and adjusters. They were thorough!
Their final list includes companies across a range of different insurance fields, including homeowners and auto insurers, health insurers, life insurers, and disability insurers. Fortunately, some of these insurers do not have a presence in Washington state.
As a practicing trial attorney in Washington, I would add GEICO to this list.
AAJ's Top Ten List is:
1. Allstate
2. Unum
3. AIG
4. State Farm
5. Conseco
6. WellPoint
7. Farmers
8. UnitedHealth
9. Torchmark
10. Liberty Mutual
Click here to read full article (Alaskan Injury Law Blog)
Researchers undertook a comprehensive investigation of thousands of court documents, SEC and FBI records, state insurance department investigations and complaints, news accounts from across the country, and the testimony and depositions of former insurance agents and adjusters. They were thorough!
Their final list includes companies across a range of different insurance fields, including homeowners and auto insurers, health insurers, life insurers, and disability insurers. Fortunately, some of these insurers do not have a presence in Washington state.
As a practicing trial attorney in Washington, I would add GEICO to this list.
AAJ's Top Ten List is:
1. Allstate
2. Unum
3. AIG
4. State Farm
5. Conseco
6. WellPoint
7. Farmers
8. UnitedHealth
9. Torchmark
10. Liberty Mutual
Click here to read full article (Alaskan Injury Law Blog)
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Prepare to Pay Tolls on 520
Just so it doesn't take you by surprise...tolling begins on the SR 520 bridge in Spring of 2011.
All-electronic tolling will begin on the floating section of the SR 520 bridge in Spring of 2011. The revenue generated from tolls will help build a new, more reliable, safer bridge in 2014.
When tolling begins in 2011 you'll travel across the bridge just like you do today. As you pass through the tolling area at regular highway speeds the system automatically detects your Good To Go! Pass (transponder) or license plate going both directions. The proper amount is then deducted from your Good To Go! tolling account. Those without a pass such as visitors or other infrequent users will be billed by mail.
Toll rates will vary time time of day, with the highest rate of around $3.50 to $3.80 each way during the peak travel times, and lower during midday, night, and weekends.
More information can be found at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Tolling/520tolling.htm
All-electronic tolling will begin on the floating section of the SR 520 bridge in Spring of 2011. The revenue generated from tolls will help build a new, more reliable, safer bridge in 2014.
When tolling begins in 2011 you'll travel across the bridge just like you do today. As you pass through the tolling area at regular highway speeds the system automatically detects your Good To Go! Pass (transponder) or license plate going both directions. The proper amount is then deducted from your Good To Go! tolling account. Those without a pass such as visitors or other infrequent users will be billed by mail.
Toll rates will vary time time of day, with the highest rate of around $3.50 to $3.80 each way during the peak travel times, and lower during midday, night, and weekends.
More information can be found at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Tolling/520tolling.htm
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
No Need For Speed!
New Speeding Law in Washington
A new law passed in 2010 will double the current penalties for speeding in an "emergency zone." The new fine ranges from $500 to $1,000.
The Washington State Patrol says the enhanced Emergency Zone law builds on an earlier "move over" law and creates zones around emergency workers, similar to what is established for construction zones. Under the law, the $124 fine will double if you are speeding or fail to move over when passing through the emergency zone.
WSP says when approaching an emergency zone, the best idea is to let off the accelerator and ease over if it is safe, preferrably at least 200 feet before you get to the pulled over vehicles.
The original "move over" law was passed in 2007. Despite that, WSP says there were still 80 collisions in which passing vehicles hit trooper vehicles parked along the highway between 2006 and 2009.
The first 90 days of the new law will focus more on troopers educating drivers about the new law.
A new law passed in 2010 will double the current penalties for speeding in an "emergency zone." The new fine ranges from $500 to $1,000.
The Washington State Patrol says the enhanced Emergency Zone law builds on an earlier "move over" law and creates zones around emergency workers, similar to what is established for construction zones. Under the law, the $124 fine will double if you are speeding or fail to move over when passing through the emergency zone.
WSP says when approaching an emergency zone, the best idea is to let off the accelerator and ease over if it is safe, preferrably at least 200 feet before you get to the pulled over vehicles.
The original "move over" law was passed in 2007. Despite that, WSP says there were still 80 collisions in which passing vehicles hit trooper vehicles parked along the highway between 2006 and 2009.
The first 90 days of the new law will focus more on troopers educating drivers about the new law.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Fewer Traffic Deaths in 2009
The King County Medical Examiner's Office released its 2009 annual report on Tuesday, detailing data gleaned from 2,137 death investigations.
According to the King County Medical Examiner, traffic deaths have declined in King County in 2009: There were 141 such deaths in 2009, down from 163 in 2008. There were 226 accidental traffic deaths in 2005, the highest number in recent years, the report says.
The vast majority of drivers and pedestrians killed in 2009 were male — about 70 percent compared with 30 percent for females, according to the report. All of the 18 motorcycle drivers killed last year were men, while the sole motorcycle passenger who was killed was a woman.
Fatal collisions involving male drivers "typically involve excessive speed and highly dangerous behavior," said Harruff.
In addition, 21 male pedestrians and nine male cyclists were killed in 2009 compared with eight female pedestrians and three female cyclists.
Traffic deaths accounted for almost 7 percent and homicides, nearly 3 percent, the report says.
The report, which is available in book form at the Medical Examiner's Office, is expected to be posted online this week at www.kingcounty.gov/health/examiner.
Dr. Richard Harruff, King County's chief medical examiner, said declines in homicides and traffic deaths can be partly attributed to doctors at Harborview "who do an excellent job saving the lives of people who otherwise might have died."
According to the King County Medical Examiner, traffic deaths have declined in King County in 2009: There were 141 such deaths in 2009, down from 163 in 2008. There were 226 accidental traffic deaths in 2005, the highest number in recent years, the report says.
The vast majority of drivers and pedestrians killed in 2009 were male — about 70 percent compared with 30 percent for females, according to the report. All of the 18 motorcycle drivers killed last year were men, while the sole motorcycle passenger who was killed was a woman.
Fatal collisions involving male drivers "typically involve excessive speed and highly dangerous behavior," said Harruff.
In addition, 21 male pedestrians and nine male cyclists were killed in 2009 compared with eight female pedestrians and three female cyclists.
Traffic deaths accounted for almost 7 percent and homicides, nearly 3 percent, the report says.
The report, which is available in book form at the Medical Examiner's Office, is expected to be posted online this week at www.kingcounty.gov/health/examiner.
Dr. Richard Harruff, King County's chief medical examiner, said declines in homicides and traffic deaths can be partly attributed to doctors at Harborview "who do an excellent job saving the lives of people who otherwise might have died."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)