The Injury Lawyer Blog

After winning his December 25 WBO Intercontinental championship bout against Indonesian challenger Heri Amol, South Korean boxer Choi Yoi-Sam collapsed of traumatic brain injuries. He was rushed to Sonchunhyang University Hospital, where he was diagnosed as being in a coma. Yoi-Sam won the bout by decision after twelve rounds, but was knocked down in the last round of the fight, although officials could not say whether the blow that put him down was related to the brain injuries that caused the coma. Doctors performed surgery to stop brain swelling, but it is unclear whether the boxer will survive.

Yoi-sam's collapse calls to mind the collapse of another South Korean boxer, Duk Koo Kim, who suffered brain injuries in a fight with Youngstown, Ohio boxer Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini, injuries that led to his death five days later. Although Sports Illustrated called Kim's death "Tragedy in the Ring," Warren Zevon reminds us in his song on Mancini that boxing is about being hit, so the consequences of it should never surprise us. Modern spectators are different from the Romans only in that once they have seen the Christians thrown to the lions they want to be able to wash their hands of guilt. If we want to enjoy bloodsport, we have to accept the stain.

But most of us are not boxers, and if you suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of someone else's negligence, contact the catastrophic injury lawyers at the law firm of Snyder & Wenner P.C. in Phoenix, Arizona.

Labels: boxing, brain injury

It is a more routine practice from insurance companies than you'd think. You sign up for a policy, filling out the complicated forms to the best of your ability. The insurance company gives you a policy, takes your premium payments for months or years. Then, when you get in an accident and truly need the policy, your coverage is suddenly dropped because of something they claim is a "material misrepresentation" of your personal information on your application. Most likely, this misrepresentation is only a product of your inability to understand the form, and as long as you were paying them the company did not bother to investigate your information. However, as soon as it was their turn to pay, and the cost was beginning to exceed the profit from your premiums, suddenly it became worth it to investigate the case.

Such was the case of a California man who was involved in a car accident. The man paid premiums for insurance with Blue Shield of California, and was never questioned about his application or given a chance to clarify or correct any misinformation, until he needed medical care, as much as $450,000 in medical care. Then, the company not only canceled his policy, but demanded that he repay the $104,000 that it had spent on his behalf.

Although the denial of coverage was approved by a lower court, a California appeals court has overturned the finding, sending the case back to a lower court and saying that the insurance company must prove that the policyholders willfully meant to deceive the insurance company or that the insurance company routinely investigated all policies before granting them (instead of only investigating ones that might prove expensive) in order to deny coverage on the basis of incomplete applications.

Insurance is supposed to make you secure, but these days the only ones made secure by it are the company's shareholders. Taking your insurance company to court, is, sadly, one of the few ways to make sure it upholds its end of the contract you signed. If you or someone you love has been denied coverage due to bad-faith insurance practices, contact the Personal Injury Lawyers, P.C. today to get in touch with an experienced bad faith insurance lawyer.

Labels: auto accident, bad faith insurance, California

The epoxy supplier whose product was blamed for the fatal tunnel collapse in one of Boston's Big Dig tunnels on July 10, 2006, has agreed to a $6 million settlement. The company, Powers Fasteners, Inc, has said that it informed contractors that its epoxy was unsafe to use for ceiling panels and would pull away over time. Company officials have stated that the epoxy was clearly intended for short-term loading only, and was not a defective product because it was never designed to be used for holding up ceiling tiles for extended periods of time. And, clearly, it was not sufficient to the task, when it failed, allowing 26 tons of concrete ceiling to crash down on cars below, killing one woman, whose husband is the plaintiff in the suit.

Any modeler knows these shortcomings of glues, that they are more susceptible to slow failure when put under consistent loads, and it seems only reasonable to assume that the other defendants in the wrongful death lawsuit, all experienced contractors and subcontractors, should have known this, too. However, they did not heed the warning, if they received it, setting the stage for the deadly construction accident in the midst of the country's most expensive highway construction project ever.

Despite this settlement, other contractors are continuing to deny responsibility, and the court seems to be agreeing with them, since the epoxy manufacturer was the only one named as a criminal defendant. However, it seems impossible that the contractors and subcontractors who relied on this epoxy to perform a role for which it was clearly unsuited were not also negligent, and we can only hope that they will either step up or be forced to take responsibility for their part in this tragedy.

If you or someone you love has been hurt or killed in an automotive or construction accident in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, contact the experienced personal injury lawyers at Pomerantz, Perlberger, & Lewis, LLP today to schedule your free initial consultation.

Labels: auto accident, construction accident, defective product, personal injury, wrongful death

In recent years, nursing homes have increasingly turned to antipsychotic drugs as a cost-effective solution to caring for more patients with less staff. As the nursing home industry has moved toward larger institutions with more residents, the managing companies have sought to streamline their operations by reducing the number of staff members. An essential part of this strategy is using antipsychotic drugs to calm and quiet "unruly" patients. About 30% of nursing home residents are on antipsychotic drugs, including about 21% of non-psychotic patients.

Why is this the case? There are three main factors. First, it is common for doctors to prescribe antipsychotics Risperdal and Seroquel for off-lable uses, such as sufferers of dementia. Recently, prescriptions for the antipsychotics were also written for depression, confusion, memory loss, and feelings of isolation, many of which are suffered by the majority of nursing home residents.

Second, there is the above-mentioned desire of nursing homes to reduce staff, making them willing to do anything that will quiet patients without the need for physical restraints, which often lead to citations.

Finally, Medicaid and other federal programs will reimburse nursing home for drugs, often without questioning the need for the prescription.

If you have a loved one in a nursing home, it is important that you carefully scrutinize their medications to make sure they are not suffering from this form of abuse. If you suspect they are simply being given medications to keep them quiet, move them to another facility, and contact an experienced nursing home abuse lawyer. In Fort Lauderdale, contact Ellis, Ged, & Bodden, P.A. for a free initial consultation.

Labels: medical negligence, misdiagnosis, nursing home abuse, off-label drug use, overprescription

From 2000 to 2006, citations for nursing homes putting residents in "imminent jeopardy" rose by 22%. Imminent jeopardy means that patients were suffering from physical abuse, injurious falls, malnutrition, bedsores, left unmedicated, and other potentially fatal circumstances. The statistics are according to the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which regulates nursing homes. However, officials point out that the increase in citations does not necessarily mean that nursing home conditions have worsened. In fact, it may be a sign that better care is on the horizon. The increased citation level is partly a measure of increased frequency of inspections. However, the inspectors did reveal almost 2,000 such violations last year, meaning that thousands of patients were put in harm's way by their nursing homes.

Unfortunately, although the inspection system was put in place to protect residents, the increased level of citations does not appear to be improving the quality of care, as the level of citations this year seems to be roughly the same as last. Part of the ineffectualness of the inspections may be that the level of fines is too low. Perhaps the only way to correct the dangerous practices of nursing homes is to make endangering residents unprofitable. If someone you love has been put in imminent jeopardy by a nursing home in the Chicago area, contact the experienced nursing home abuse lawyer Barry G. Doyle, to really penalize these harmful practices.

Labels: nursing home abuse, personal injury, wrongful death

On December 17, the Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman decided that the majority of voting machines used by the counties of Colorado were unreliable and not secure. What Coffman's office termed "decertification" of the voting machines may have a profound effect on election law nationwide. Electronic voting machines have been criticized since their inception for their vulnerability to hacking and their lack of a paper record of voting. Some manufacturers, like Diebold (now Premier Election Systems, whose machines were the only ones passed by the Secretary of State's office), were criticized because of their heavy involvement with one or the other political party in swing states where exit polls and election returns were markedly inconsistent. Despite all criticisms, however, electronic voting machines have become the standard method for conducting elections.

The state's new rules follow a federal judge's decision that the state's old methods of testing were inadequate. Now county officials and vendors have 30 days to hire a governmental affairs lawyer and mount a challenge to the ruling, or else the decertification will likely stand for primary elections in the coming year, meaning that some counties, including Denver, could be forced to conduct an all-paper poll. If your political organization has a stake in this or any other issue connected to the running of elections in Colorado, the Denver political attorneys at Zakhem | Atherton, LLC are prepared to give strategic counsel.

Labels: Colorado, election law, governmental affairs

A family in Ventura County, California, is trying to get their purchase of a $2.1 million house rescinded because the house suffers a daily rain of potentially deadly golf balls. When the man mows his lawn, he dons a suit of improvised gear to protect himself against severe brain and spinal injury from falling golf balls. He points out that his ability to work would be seriously impaired by any such injury. In addition, the family does not let their dog or children out into the yard—which had been one of the selling points for the house—because of the as many as 28 balls which fall into their lawn on a daily basis.

Although some may blame the family for buying the house near the fairway of a tight hole without properly evaluating the slice of the course's average golfer, misrepresentation of a property is a serious problem when one is considering purchasing real estate. If you feel you have been mislead as to the character of a property you purchased in the Denver, Colorado area, contact the experienced real estate lawyers at Zakhem | Atherton, LLC today to learn what options you might have.

Labels: brain injury, personal injury, real estate

The promise of molecular-based targeted cancer drugs has always been that they would attack only the cancer and reduce possible side effects to small effects with a low probability. However, they are proving to come with just as many dangerous side effects as more traditional drug therapies. A recent study showed that Pfizer, Inc's Sutent, approved to treat a variety of stomach cancer and advanced kidney cancer, can damage the heart, leading to high blood pressure and heart failure. This follows last year's revelation that Gleevac, designed to treat leukemia, as well as the previous findings that Herceptin, which targets breast cancer, also cause heart damage.

Although researchers say that these drugs are less toxic to the body as a whole, they admit that many of the molecules that drive cancer are involved in normal cell function. Thus, the so-called targeted therapies may also target normal cells as well.

If you or someone you love is finding that the promises made about your new medication are as much wishful thinking as real science, contact the Texas defective drug lawyers at Jim Adler & Associates today to find help.

Labels: defective pharmaceutical, heart damage, scholarly study

As a central crossroads in the United States, Ohio highways carry more freight per mile than any other state in the Union. North-South on I-71 or east-west on I-70, traffic travels from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and from sea to shining sea goes through Ohio. This traffic brings great revenue for the state and supplies us with all the goods and services we need.

Unfortunately, this traffic has its price. Over 150 people were killed, and hundreds more injured by in trucking accidents on Ohio roads last year. What is the cause for these deaths and injuries? Sadly, it is often the case that trucking companies have put their profits and schedules over the safety of the Ohio drivers with whom large trucks share the road. Ohio issued more citations for trucks driving overweight than any other state, except for California and Texas, showing that trucking companies are cramming the highways with trucks traveling with dangerously heavy loads.

If you or someone you love has been injured by this dangerous practice, contact the Columbus, Ohio law firm of Robert W. Kerpsack Co, LPA to get in touch with an experienced truck accident lawyer who can look out for your rights.

Labels: Ohio, truck accident, wrongful death

A Boston, MA jury awarded $2.5 million in damages to a woman who was told she had the HIV virus, then underwent treatment for almost nine years before learning she never contracted the virus. As a result of the potent cocktail of dangerous drugs she took to kill the virus she never had, the woman suffered numerous side effects, including depression, fatigue, loss of weight and appetite, and inflamed intestines, all of which no doubt confirmed the AIDS hypothesis in the minds of doctors and nurses. However, what makes this case of medical malpractice so grievous and why the punitive amount in this case is far too small, is that the misdiagnosis was made on purely anecdotal evidence, and never once, during almost nine years of treatment, was the women given definitive tests to confirm the presence of HIV.

The doctor claims that the woman said she had worked as a prostitute, that her partner had AIDS, and that she had suffered three bouts of a type of pneumonia commonly found in AIDS sufferers. In addition, the woman had elevated counts of immuno-response cells in her bloodstream. The woman denies she was a prostitute, does admit that a former boyfriend tested positive for HIV/AIDS, and it seems unlikely that the woman said she had suffered bouts of Pneumocystis pneumonia.

But none of this is particularly important, since even if a woman was a prostitute and had bouts of Pneumocystis pneumonia, somewhere in nine years of treatment, a definitive test should have administered. Even if doctors wanted to begin the treatment immediately to aggressively combat the virus, when blood monitoring began and showed no presence of the virus, someone should have taken Othello's advice and said, "Be sure of it ; give me the ocular proof." Not to administer the test is a gross example of medical negligence.

Although doctors often have to make judgment calls where evidence is incomplete and action must be taken immediately to save a life, whenever possible, medicine should fall back on its basis, which is science, not art. Doctors should not turn a lifestyle or a social background or an ethnicity into a diagnosis, and when they do this, they should be severely penalized for their medical malpractice. If you have gone to a doctor and received treatment based not on medicine, but on the doctor's personal biases about your race, sex, or lifestyle, contact the experienced medical malpractice attorney, Barry G. Doyle, in Chicago, for a consultation.

Labels: hospital misconduct, medical malpractice, medical negligence, misdiagnosis

A recent study by the Canadian Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) has increased concerns about Avandia and drugs in its class that are used to treat type 2 diabetes. The study showed patients treated with glitazones had a 60 percent higher risk of heart failure requiring hospitalization compared to patients given another class of diabetes pill. These patients had a 40 percent higher risk of heart attack, and a 30 percent higher risk of dying compared to those on the other drugs. The study was conducted by analyzing data for 160,000 diabetics aged 65 and older from the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) database.

The data represents the most comprehensive figures in the study of Avandia's effects and it raises questions as to why this dangerous drug is still on the market. In human terms, the figures mean that for every 100 patients taking the drugs for the four years covered by the study, there were three additional cases of heart failure, four additional heart attacks, and five premature deaths whose cause might be attributed to the drug. Although Health Canada withdrew approval of the drug for all but patients who could not tolerate other diabetes drugs early in November, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been reluctant to do so, although it did put a black-box warning on the drug.

If the FDA will not protect us from dangerous drugs, who will? If you have been injured by a dangerous pharmaceutical, you cannot undo the damage, but you can make sure your continuing expenses are covered and diminish the profit of those who did you harm. Consult a Phoenix, Arizona-area defective drug lawyer at the firm of Snyder & Wenner, P.C. today to find out what options are open to you.

Labels: Canada, defective pharmaceutical, FDA, scholarly study

The case of a Hartford, Connecticut man brings up an interesting ethical dilemma at the heart of defective product litigation. The man, a 51-year-old carpenter with 20 years of experience was injured in early 2003 in a nail gun accident. The man was working on the rafters of a church when a nail rebounded off a subsurface layer of metal. The 3 1/2 –inch nail went through his cheek and into his brain. Now the man is partially paralyzed and has seizures as a result of his catastrophic brain injury. He will never be able to work or drive again, and he needs constant supervision. He sued the toolmaker Stanley Works and the retailer Home Depot, for their part in the accident.

In response, the toolmaker and retailer said that the nail gun meets all industry standards, is used countless times each day, and that it has adequate warnings to prevent just such an accident. Therefore, they charge that the carpenter is wholly responsible for the accident.

Really, it seems that in this case neither party is at fault. The man had sufficient experience with the tool that he can reasonably be expected to have been using it in a manner consistent with best safety practices. The toolmaker made a product that was as safe as possible given its effective design parameters.

Who, then, should pay? It seems unreasonable to expect the man to bear the full penalty for the accident, since it was, after all, an accident. No matter what the toolmaker and retailer say, they share a part in this accident. They made the tool that carries with it some inherent risk. Therefore, it seems that injuries as a result of the tool are inherent in their business, and, ideally, they should accept it and voluntarily offer compensation for those injured by their tools.

Since they do not volunteer to pay their fair share of responsibility, the only way for injured workers to receive compensation is through litigation. In this case, a Connecticut jury saw the shared responsibility, and parceled out responsibility. The toolmaker and retailer were ordered to pay $3.4 million to cover their portion of responsibility. The man has already paid out part of his share in blood, flesh, and bone, and he will pay the rest through his declining years as his injuries worsen and he shrinks into the hollow shell of a man.

If you have been injured in an accident that is partly your fault, you know what your cost is in pain, in grief, and in a diminished life, but it is important that others pay their share of what happened to you. If you or a loved one has suffered as a result of a defective product in the Phoenix, Arizona area, contact the product liability lawyers at Snyder & Wenner, P.C. You don't have to bear the burden alone any more.

Labels: brain injury, defective product

Following up on my entry on the strain in doctor-patient relations, it seems that medical institutions have decided to play hard-ball with their patients over medical malpractice suits. In one case in Wichita, a clinic has severed relationships with patients who file medical malpractice suits, even though there was no accusation of hospital malpractice. Thus, if a patient files a suit against one of the doctors, then the other 100+ physicians refuse to treat them as well. The practice is not common, but if it is adopted, it can serve as one of the worst forms of intimidation, especially in small communities where care providers might be limited.

Most recently, the Wichita Clinic barred its 12 locations from serving the family of a Wichita police officer who filed a lawsuit after she suffered a life-threatening punctured artery during surgery. Because of the special relationship the Wichita Clinic shared with the city of Wichita, the officer's insurance limited her to treatment at the Clinic. Therefore, as a result of the action, she and her family were without medical care for six weeks before accommodation could be made.

Although physicians are allowed to choose who they wish to treat, and to refuse continuing to treat patients for any reason, this action is by the clinic and not by any individual physician. Furthermore, it seems an attempt by the medical community to increase its already considerable bargaining power by giving plaintiffs a reason not to litigate in the first place, even if they have a legitimate case, as did the police officer, who was awarded $140,000 by a Sedgwick County jury. Such actions serve no one but the medical community, and not as a medical community, but as a business community, seeking to protect its own financial well-being rather than its patients health.

But if you have been hurt by the negligence of a doctor, do not fear to file your surgical malpractice suit. An experienced medical malpractice lawyer can look after your interests and make sure you do not suffer any more at the hands of the hospital or clinic. If you or someone you love is seeking recourse for medical malpractice in the Phoenix, Arizona area, contact the experienced medical malpractice lawyers at Snyder & Wenner, P.C. today.

Labels: hosptical misconduct, medical malpractice, surgical malpractice

Although lobbyists for the insurance companies and the AMA are winning the PR battle over the representation of medical malpractice litigation (as they are winning the battle over health care reform), the truth is that physicians and their insurers rarely are forced to settle outrageous medical malpractice claims for significant amounts of money. Instead, malpractice defense lawyers have a distinct power advantage, especially in the pre-trial negotiations stage, and they use that power to lever personal injury lawyers and their clients to accept relatively small settlements in lieu of a trial.

What are the sources of malpractice defense lawyers' bargaining power? The actual circumstances are too complex to discuss in detail, but here's a rough idea

• Uneven stakes lead to hard bargaining—While the monetary amount at stake in malpractice litigation is a zero-sum game, i.e. whatever the one loses, the other gains, there are uneven amounts at stake overall because doctors risk damage to their reputation and self-image, while the insurer risks losing other clients if it is perceived as unable to protect doctors. This leads them to fight and bargain these cases harder than clients and lawyers making all but the strongest lawsuits.
• Uneven risk tolerance—Risk tolerance is a measure of how likely a person is to take a certain amount of reward versus taking a risk for a larger award. Overall, physicians and insurance companies are much more risk tolerant than personal injury plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs have just this one case, this one time to get a settlement, while insurance companies, especially, don't mind taking a risk because they know the odds are in their favor.
• Anticipated jury skepticism—Juries tend to be dubious about malpractice claims. When a patient sues a doctor, the jury defaults to trusting the doctor, increasing the patient's burden of proof. Lawyers know this, know that in a close case, the verdict usually goes to the defendant. Because of this, plaintiffs and their lawyers are more likely to take a settlement than go to trial.
• Superior resources—Malpractice defendants have several resource-advantages they can bring to bear during trial that will encourage plaintiffs to settle out of court for discounted rates.
• Doctors tend to know more about the specific circumstances of a patient's treatment than the patient does, and they use this information to their advantage.
• The doctor has friends and associates on which to call to testify as to the circumstances of the case and the treatment.
• Malpractice defense attorneys are specialists maintained at high premiums by insurance companies to deal with the very precise circumstances of malpractice cases, while plaintiffs' attorneys are more often generalists, and more often less experienced.
• Physicians and insurers have superior financial resources to bring to bear in preparing their case.

For all these reasons, physicians and their insurers tend to force smaller settlements in malpractice cases they choose to settle. In order to ensure that you receive a reasonable settlement in your medical malpractice case, you need a lawyer with the case experience, the bargaining skill, and the determination to get you the money you need to make up for the unfortunate damage suffered as a result of a doctor's negligence. If you or a loved one has been injured by a healthcare professional, contact the experienced medical malpractice lawyers at Pomerantz, Perlberger, & Lewis, LLP.

Labels: large settlement, lawyer experience, medical malpractice

Although critics of the tort system for settling medical malpractice claims have long charged that the legal system is nothing more than a lottery system that can hurt good doctors and reward crooked lawyers, the truth is that the tort system works surprisingly well. According to a recent study by the Law School of the University of Missouri-Columbia entitled "What We Know about Malpractice Settlements," published in the Iowa Law Review, the rate of settlement and the settlement amount for medical malpractice claims were actually tied very closely to the merits of the claim.

According to the study, which compiled data from a dozen previous studies over two decades, weak claims received payment in only 10-20% of the cases, while strong cases received payment in 85-90% of the claims. In addition, the average settlement amount for weak cases was much less. Weak cases received an average settlement less than $14,000 in most studies, whereas the strong cases received settlements in excess of $170,000 dollars. Correlating the two statistics highlights the disparity. A claim without merit against a doctor will cost, on average, $1400, while a claim with merit will cost $144000, a disparity of two orders of magnitude, clearly a significant difference. Based on this study, the tort system for managing medical malpractice is definitely a good one for making sure that injured patients receive payment, while fraudulent claims do not.

If this is so, what is the source of the common perception that the system is deeply flawed? That will be tomorrow's topic.

This study gives hope to those facing off against the medical system over medical negligence. It shows that, despite the advantages of defendants in these cases, plaintiffs with merit will receive significant payments most of the time. If you or someone you love has been injured by medical negligence, do not despair, but instead contact the Texas injury lawyers at Jim Adler & Associates today.

Labels: case merit, medical malpractice, scholarly study

A couple that was awarded $5.5 million in October following a crash with a tractor-trailer on Highway I-35 in central Texas said they would rather have their lives before the accident than the money. On June 16, 2006, the couple was driving in the right-hand lane of the highway when they witnessed traffic slowing ahead. They slowed in response, but the tanker truck behind them did not. Instead, it steamrollered their 2002 Ford Mustang, crushing it and sending it into the car in front of them. The woman, who was driving, suffered a break in every bone in her body above the waist. She spent 91 days in intensive care and is still receiving a high level of care. Her left arm is completely paralyzed and her right arm is partially paralyzed.

In addition to the health problems, the couple expressed anger that the semi truck driver is still on the road, having received only a class C misdemeanor for following too closely, although he is working for another shipping company. It is hard to believe that any company would hire the driver after the accident, but the practice is common. The only way to stop it is to make it highly unprofitable. If you have suffered a severe injury as a result of a trucking accident, you have a responsibility to pursue your claim. Please contact the experienced trucking accident lawyers at the Houston, Texas law firm of Kennedy-Hodges L.L.P.

Labels: large settlement, truck accident

It is common to hear about truck accidents and auto accidents, but far less common are train accidents. However, when they occur, they can be serious. On November 30, just such an accident occurred on Chicago's South Side, causing 60 people on an Amtrak train to suffer injuries when it struck a Norfolk Southern freight train. Although the speed limit on the track is normally 79 mph, a warning signal told the driver to slow down to 15 mph due to the presence of another train on the track. However, the driver slowed to only 40 mph, and even after applying the emergency brakes, the Amtrak train was still traveling 35 mph when it struck the freight train.

Now the first lawsuit over this Chicago train accident has been filed. Six members of a Michigan family who were riding the train to come to Chicago for shopping and holiday sightseeing were all injured in the crash. The senior member of the family, suffered a minor brain injury and other severe injuries when the crash occurred. He had just risen from his seat, but the other five members of the family, who were seated, suffered far more minor injuries.

The Michigan family hired a Chicago area personal injury lawyer to sue both Amtrak and Norfolk Southern for negligence leading to the crash, including poor communication, excessive speed, and other factors.

If you or someone you love was injured in this needless accident, contact the Law Firm of Barry G. Doyle, P.C, where an experienced Chicago accident attorney will handle your claim and make sure you do not suffer more than you have already suffered.

Labels: chicago, personal injury, train accident

Two men who were injured when their pickup was run off the road by an 18-wheeler, then insulted with a ticket that accused them of being at fault, received a $900,000 dollar settlement when the trucking company realized the men could prove they were not at fault.

On December 5, 2004, the two men were driving their pickup on interstate 295 in Florida, when they were rear-ended by a tractor-trailer owned and operated by L & S Logistics Services. The men were left in the woods in their inverted pickup. Then, when they were rescued by paramedics and being taken to the hospital for treatment of their severe injuries, a sate trooper came in and issued a ticket to the driver.

However, the men refused to accept this, and they hired a personal injury lawyer to prove they were not at fault for the crash. In examining the trailer they were towing the night of the crash, they found that the semi truck's logo, its grill, and license plate had left an impression on the trailer's doors.

Then they discovered that the driver's license had been suspended 11 times and had been involved in 4 previous accidents while driving a tractor-trailer. Furthermore, the trucking company had destroyed evidence of the crash, and the judge was considering punitive damages when the trucking company decided to settle.

This kind of driver should not be allowed to be on the road, and if you have been injured in an automobile accident with a semi truck, it is entirely possible the driver that hit you has hurt other people, and will continue hurting people unless you can get them off the road and penalize the trucking company that put them out there. To stop this vicious cycle, contact the trucking accident injury lawyers at The Law Offices of Barry G. Doyle, P.C. today to get

Labels: personal injury, truck accident