Lawsuit Finance Blog

Lawsuit funding can be an expensive method of obtaining funds. Of course, when contracting with most lawsuit finance companies, if the funded case is unsuccessful, the money becomes free; there is no repayment requirement. This is why the funds are expensive. To assist in keeping cost at reasonable levels, Lawsuit Financial Corporation has recently announced a "capped funding" policy.

Unlike other companies, whose profits increase with time and have no caps on those profits. Lawsuit Financial offers a fixed fee on its legal funding contracts, then rebates the amount due, if early resolution is achieved. The company will also compromise returns if the case is resolved for significantly less than the value anticipated at the time the lawsuit financing was placed.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides funding for Auto Accident Cases, Premises Liability Cases, Dog Bite Cases, Airplane Crash Cases and many other personal injury cases. Please call us toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your personal injury case funding situation. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

A recent article about a wrongful death trial in Pittsburgh, PA caught my attention. The trial resulted in a $2.5 Million plaintiff's verdict on the wrongful death case, but the jury, ignoring the judge's specific instructions, rendered a $0 award on the "Survivor Act" portion of the case. This result suggests a misunderstanding about survivor loss benefits that I would like to clarify in this post.

Pennsylvania, like most jurisdictions, divides Wrongful Death cases into two parts and, in Pennsylvania, those "parts" are contained in two separate statutes. A damage claim under the Wrongful Death Act is brought on behalf of named beneficiaries of the person who died in an accident, typically, a spouse, child or parents of the deceased. Wrongful death damages include funeral and administrative expenses and contributions (both monetary and non-monetary) that would have been made to the beneficiary by the deceased. A Survival Act lawsuit (or count in a Wrongful Death lawsuit) is brought by the administrator or executor of the estate of a person who died in an accident. The damages recoverable in a survival claim include conscious pain and suffering, past wage loss, and future earning power.

It is incredulous for a jury, quoted as stating that "no amount of damages would adequately punish" the hospital, to give $0 damages for the survivor of the deceased. This same jury awarded $2.5 Million in Wrongful Death damages because the hospital's "policies, culture, and lack of competant supervision resulted in the death of Michael Rettger".

The Plaintiffs' attorneys, Paul A. Lagnese and David M. Paul, in Pittsburgh, have filed a motion for new trial, limited only to damages under the Survival Act because they believe the no-cause ($0 award) is against the weight of the evidence. Expert testimony from a CPA and an actuary estimated the deceased's lost earning capacity at between $4 million and $15 million.

"For whatever reason, the jury decided to disregard the judge's instructions and to disregard the overwhelming evidence we presented to the loss of earning capacity," said Lagnese. The attorneys were not permitted to talk to members of the jury after the verdict.

It is inconceivable that a jury, instructed in the law and understanding its charge would render this verdict. Therefore, it is my assumption that the jury did not understand the law as charged by the judge. Thus, for all of you prospective jurors in Pennsylvania and across the United States, allow me to reinterate that the accidental death of a person caused by the negligent or intentional acts of another results in two separate, but related causes of action. The first is a wrongful death action, for compensation to the deceased for his conscious pain and suffering and his death (paid to his beneficiaries). The second is to his survivors, for loss of his companionship and present and future support (measured, in part, by current earnings and future earning capacity). This is a very simplistic explanation, but it covers the basics. Thus, for you prospective jurors, faced with a case similar to the Rettger case, these two causes of action should lead you to the conclusion that an award for both is appropriate and was, in the Rettger case. I wish Mr. Lagnese and Mr. Paul luck in their pursuit of additional and appropriate justice for the family of Mr. Rettger.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides non-recourse legal funding for survivors who pursue Wrongful Death and Survivor Loss litigation. We fund personal injury litigation including, but not limited to Auto Accident cases, Premises Liability cases, Medical Malpractice cases and many other types of personal injury cases. Contact us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com or call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848). The call and the advice are absolutely free. We specialize in assisting "David" in beating "Goliath".

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

As readers of this blog know, I have been a constant critic of the lack of justice being dispensed by the Michigan Supreme Court and I have asked Michigan residents to contact legislators and complain. I hinted at the fact that Michigan is not alone in dispensing injustice. Recently, I received graphic confirmation of this fact in an article recently written about the Mississippi Supreme Court by Alex A. Alston, Jr., a prominent Mississippi trial lawyer.

Mr. Alston practices in Jackson, MS,has litigated hundreds of cases in 44 years of practice, and has been known, primarily, as a defense attorney. He has argued many cases before the Mississippi Supreme Court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and other circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a past president of the Mississippi Bar and is a legal writer and teacher of trial advocacy. In short, he does not have a long standing plaintiff bias (like me)and, he is not a novice.

The premise of Mr. Alston's article is, and I quote from it, "If you are a victim of personal injury, malpractice or corporate fraud, you have almost no chance of having a jury verdict in your favor affirmed by the state [Mississippi] Supreme Court". His research indicates that during the most recent 4 1/2 years, 88 percent of all plaintiff jury verdicts have been reversed by the Mississippi Supreme Court. During that same period, a plaintiff's success rate in overturning a defense verdict is even more astonishing. That number is zero! You read that correctly; according to the Alston article, defendant corporations, hospitals and insurance companies prevailed at the Mississippi Supreme Court level, 100 percent of the time.

I have reported in this forum on political efforts to limit court access in my home state, Michigan. Well, according to Alston, the same is true in Mississippi. How do we stop this bias? Alston opines that the average citizen needs to "get involved" in the election. Because we elect state supreme court justices are elected, money and politics play a large role in determining outcome. So does rhetoric. Supreme court justices are not "tough on crime" (purview of prosecutor and sentencing judge), says Alston; they merely determine whether a criminal received a fair trial.

"Voters should be wary of Supreme Court candidates who insist that they have been especially fair to large corporations. These are the justices who are now making it almost impossible for a victim to prevail in the Supreme Court, even after a jury verdict is rendered in the victim's favor." In other words, you are one accident or injury away from being the next victim of a biased supreme court, unless the public takes action and reverses this trend.

Alston encourages citizens to check out from whom a particular candidate for supreme court is receiving her/his contributions as it is probably the best indication of how a justice will rule. Contribution lists are available on the various secretary of state Web sites in each state. Look for the number and size of corporate donations, a strong indication that individual rights will not be upheld. Likewise, if donors contributing are from pro-plaintiff organizations, one can reasonably expect pro-justice rulings.

Alston opines that neither is acceptable. He states:

"He [a judge] takes an oath to be fair and impartial to all regardless of the parties' status and he should simply follow the law. Nothing short of that is acceptable. Our entire judicial system is built on a "rule of law." In other words, it makes no difference whether you are a prince or a pauper, the law must be precisely the same for all. A court that substitutes its opinion for that of a jury, or simply decides a case for the benefit of a favored party, tears the basic fabric of our judicial system to shreds. If the rule of law is not followed, the entire foundation of our judicial system is undermined. The public has a right to expect the Supreme Court to follow the rule of law and decide the cases before it fairly and impartially without favor to any party regardless of status, race, creed or color."

I applaud Alston for his brave, thoughtful and honest article. Fairness and impartiality are the cornerstones of our legal system and political influence is destroying our once great justice system. You, the voters, can sit on the sidelines and do nothing, or, you can educate yourselves about the candidates, the source of their contribution, and their positions on the issues. Then, most importantly, you must vote for the candidate whose positions most closely mirror your personal beliefs. Only when judges are once again elected by all of the people, instead of by the rich and powerful, will we be a country of "liberty and justice for all".

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides lawsuit funding to injured and disabled victims who have filed Auto Accident Lawsuits, Premises Liability Lawsuits, Medical Malpractice Lawsuits, Workers Compensation Lawsuits, Construction Accident Lawsuits, Product Liability Lawsuits and others. For a free analysis of your litigation funding situation, please call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

Former Johnny Carson announcer, Ed McMahon, of "Heeeeere's Johnny" fame, has been in the news quite a bit, lately. First, he called attention to the home foreclosure crisis in our country by announcing that his multi-million dollar mansion in California was being foreclosed upon. One reason why he has fallen upon hard times is that he was injured in a fall, broke his neck, and had to undergo multiple surgeries in an attempt to correct serious physical problems caused by the fall.

More recently, it was announced that Mr. McMahon is pursuing a medical malpractice and premises liability lawsuit against those he holds responsible for his condition. This Lawsuit Finance Blog has provided several posts on the issue of medical malpractice; today, I want to focus on the slip & fall or premises liability (as slips & falls or trips & falls are referred to in the legal profession) aspect of the case.

In Michigan, the headquarters of Lawsuit Financial Corporation and the State where my law practice has been for over 31 years, premises liability law has taken an ugly turn to the benefit of the premises owner or lease holder (insurance company's insured) and against the victim (the injured party). Michigan is an extreme example where pro-business and pro-insurance handpicked judges invent new laws or interpret old ones to the detriment of innocent victims of negligence, but this phenomenon is on the rise in other states, as well. Michigan is a "comparative negligence" State. This means that if both sides are negligent, the tryer of fact and/or law, must grant plaintiff an award (if appropriate under the circumstances), attach percentages to each party's fault and, an reduce the award by the at fault percentage attributable to the plaintiff. Sounds fair, right?

Over the last fifteen years or so, after the appointment of numerous pro-business judges, the standard of "open & obvious" has reared its ugly head, not as a comparative negligence standard (as it should be) but as an absolute defense to liability.. One 'theme" used by these pro-business jurists to deny plaintiffs' justice, is that a fall is unlikely to cause serious injury.

It is pure fiction that people do not sustain serious injuries from falls. Mr. McMahon's injuries are prime examples of the absurdity of this premise. The fact is that falls are the leading cause of injury deaths to our older population. Falls are also the leading cause of treated injuries in hospital emergency rooms. In 2004, for example, 14,900 people 65 and older died from injuries related to unintentional falls; about 1.8 million people 65 and older were treated in emergency departments for nonfatal injuries from falls, and more than 433,000 of these patients were hospitalized. These rates have risen, significantly, over the past decade.

A large percentage of fall victims suffer minor to severe injuries such as bruises, hip fractures or head trauma; such injuries can increase the risk of early death. Falls are also the most common cause of traumatic brain injuries. It is clear that serious injury and death frequently result from falls to the ground, regardless of cause or distance. You may remember that famous diet doctor, Robert Atkins, died as the result of a fall in 2003.

I am calling upon Michigan residents to take action against this injustice. Contact your state representatives and ask them to sponsor a bill to make premises liability law fair in Michigan. Every other area of the law is subject to the application of the comparative negligence standard except Premises Liability. Ask your State Representative to apply straight comparative negligence to Premises Liability litigation.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation is one of the country's leading law suit funding companies. We provide non-recourse cash advances in Premises Liability/Slip & Fall cases and all other Personal Injury cases. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day , Legal Funding Case of the Day

Bookmark:

There was a very interesting jury verdict returned last week in a federal court in Las Vegas Nevada. The verdict was returned in an area of law that has not yet been discussed in Lawsuit Finance Blog. If you purchase a private disability insurance policy, or such a policy is provided as a benefit by your employer, you are entitled to valuable benefits if you become disabled from injury or illness. There are many qualifiying issues involved with cases like these, but the basic premise is that if you become disabled, and you have a disability policy, you get the benefits that your premiums paid for.

Back to the jury in Las Vegas. It returned unanimous verdicts last week against Paul Revere Life Insurance Company and UnumProvident Corporation (Unum Group) in the partial retrial of a lawsuit originally tried to verdict in 2004. In the 2004 trial, the jury awarded $1.6 Million in compensatory damages and $10 Million in punitive damages to G. Clinton Merrick in connection with the insurers' denial of his disability claim. The insurers appealed that award, and the US Court of Appeals reversed the punitive award and sent the case back to US District Court for retrial before a new jury.

The new jury ordered Paul Revere Life Insurance Co. to pay $24 Million and UnumProvident Corporation was ordered to pay $36 Million. The punitive award of $60 Million is six times the previous award that had been appealed by the insurers following the 2004 trial.

But here is the important aspect of this case that every disability policy holder should know about. A terrific trial lawyer by the name of Rick Friedman handled this case and alleged that the insurance companies' claims handling practices were improper. In other words, the companies created a dishonest claims evaluation system that virtually guaranteed claims denial in the vast majority of cases. According to Friedman, "the jury heard evidence of a fifteen year scheme to cheat disabled people. The money made off this scheme is in the hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. Jury after jury, and regulator after regulator has condemned their practices, but still they continue. The verdicts will keep coming until their practices change." There have been multiple government investigations of these practices as well as separate expose's by CBS' 60 Minutes and Dateline NBC. It is the dishonesty that resulted in the huge punitive (punishment to the insurance company) damage award in this case.

The bottom line here is that the policy holder should not take "no" for an answer from a disability insurance company without first seeking assistance from a competant trial lawyer like Rick Friedman. Insurance companies love taking your money in what they call "premiums"; they do not love paying out your money in what they call "benefits". Aside from blatant insurance company dishonesty, the other shame here is that these are 1st party insurance claims; they should not be adversarial.

By the way, Rick Friedman is the author of two best selling books about trials and trial techniques. The books, "Polarizing the Case" and "Rules of the Road" are available at Amazon.com.

As you can see, disability insurance lawsuits are hard faught and, potentially, very valuable claims. The two sides of the lawsuit are not equal. On the one side, you have a very powerful and rich insurance company. On the other, you have a disabled individual. Who do you think is better prepared to fight the case to the end? The goal of the powerful insurance company is to wait out the disabled individual until he runs out of money or the will to carry on. That is where lawsuit funding from Lawsuit Financial Corporation can assist. If you are having financial difficulties while fighting for your rights under a disability insurance policy, call us or visit our website and ask about interim legal funding. Providing lawsuit capital is not a "lawsuit loan", because the money is excused if you lose your case. Litigation finance principal and profit (if any) is paid only if the case resolves in your favor. Litigation financing is available to attorneys who need assistance in financing lawsuits; lawsuit capital is available to plaintiffs who need assistance with ordinary bills under extraordinary cicumstances like those that existed in Las Vegas. Lawsuit Financial Corporation is a leading provider of lawsuit financing. The company and its attorney/director, have more combined legal and litigation finance experience than anyone in the industry.

If you have an attorney and have filed a lawsuit as the result of the denial of diability benefits from a group or privately purchased policy, Lawsuit funding may be available to you. If you qualify, you don't have to wait to resolve your lawsuit to get the money you need; Lawsuit Financial will look at your case, work with your attorney, and provide the legal funding necessary to relieve the financial pressure to settle early and cheap. We also provide litigation funding for Auto Accident victims and all other personal injury victims with pending lawsuits. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848), and talk to an experienced legal finance representative for free. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We will do everything in our power to assist you.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Legal Funding Case of the Day

Bookmark:

A U. S District Court judge has approved an $18.2 million settlement for a Milwaukee family whose daughter was brain damaged from birthing complications at a community health center funded by the federal government.

The child was born at the clinic in 1998 and, apparently, was stuck in the birth canal for more than 20 minutes. As the result of a lack of oxygen, she sustained a severe brain injury and will, most likely, need lifetime assistance.

The child's attorney, Euel Kinsey, said that the "award would assist the family in putting the pieces of their life back together" and provide for "continuing care" for the child. The government denied negligence (but paid $18.2 million anyway, go figure).

The incident that resulted in this birth trauma, hospital negligence, litigation, occurred when a clinic physician advised the expectant mother to go to a Milwaukee hospital for drug treatments that would induce birth with shortened labor. She went to the hospital, where hospital nurses managed her drug treatment while maintaining phone contact with nurses from the clinic. The baby became stuck in the birth canal. It took nurses several minutes to dislodge her. As the result of oxygen deprivation, she developed severe cerebral palsy and seizure disorder.

This is a tragic set of circumstances. The settlement is substantial, but so is lifetime care for a severely brain damaged child. Euel Kinsey is a well know Michigan attorney who specializes in these types of cases and I compliment him for the superlative job he did for his clients and for his long term contribution to justice for all victims of negligence.

Birth trauma is expensive and time consuming litigation. Law suit funding is available to families and attorneys who have experienced this type of tragedy. Litigation financing is available to attorneys who need assistance in financing lawsuits; lawsuit capital is available to plaintiffs who need assistance with ordinary bills under extraordinary cicumstances like those that existed in Milwaukee. Litigation funding is contingent upon recovery and a lawsuit advance is excused if the case is unsuccessful. Thus, these are not lawsuit loans; they are better described as non-recourse, contingent upon recovery, legal funding.
Lawsuit Financial Corporation is a leading provider of lawsuit financing. The company and its attorney/director, have more combined legal and litigation finance experience than anyone in the industry. Lawsuit Financial is a risk-taking company. We provide lawsuit capital advances in Birth Trauma, Medical Malpractice cases and we have unique trial lawyer expertise in evaluating and funding such cases. We also provide funding for Auto Accident Cases, Premises Liability Cases, Dog Bite Cases, Airplane Crash Cases and many other personal injury cases. Please call us toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your personal injury case funding situation. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Legal Funding Case of the Day

Bookmark:

Lawsuit Finance Blog is back after a two week vacation. The lawsuit funding news item of the day has to be the guilty plea entered by the makers of controversial pain medication, Oxycontin, and the fact that they have been ordered to fork over $600 million in fines and other fees.

The company and three current and former executives entered the guilty plea, today, in a Virginia federal court. In their plea, they admit to misleading regulators, doctors and patients about the drug’s risk of addiction and its potential to be abused. The huge criminal and civil fine assessed to the company was related to the drug’s “misbranding,” an activity that also resulted in the guilty pleas of three executives and personal fines of $34.5 million

OxyContin has been marketed as a powerful drug that provides serious pain relief for up to 12 hours. Initially, Purdue Pharma had contended that OxyContin, because of its time-release formulation, posed a lower threat of abuse and addiction to patients than alternative, shorter-acting painkillers. A marketing campaign based upon this contention resulted in annual sales of $1 billion. The drug was heavily and misleadingly to doctors as an appropriate, time release, pain reliever.

Instead, drug abusers soon learned that crushing or chewing a tablet or snorting or injecting it produced a heroin-like high. This resulted in significant addiction rates and increases in drug-related crime.

While this was a criminal, not a civil matter, it is typical of the profits over people mentality of the drug industry. In Michigan, the world headquarters of Lawsuit Financial Corporation, the fact that the drug was FDA approved prevents Michigan residents from pursuing litigation against the drug manufacturer. This is a law that the Michigan legislature must change along with other legal standards that have prevented Michigan residents from receiving justice in Michigan. If you are a Michigan resident, write your state senator and/or state representative and tell them that you want laws that prevent citizen access to our courts abolished.

Lawsuit Financial and its' attorney/director are at the forefront of this fight in Michigan and we are against tort recovery restrictions anywhere in the U.S.. Contact your state or local trial lawyer association (in Michigan, it is the Michigan Association for Justice) or contact the national association, the American Association for Justice.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides lawsuit funding for litigants while they wait for their cases to resolve. As indicated above, the law suit funding company is also involved with state and national justice organizations to promote justice for accident victims. For more information or a free analysis of your legal funding situation, call 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Legal Funding Case of the Day

Bookmark:

Lawsuit Financial Corporation is owned and operated by American Association of Justice member, trial lawyer Mark M. Bello. As a result, we understand most of the issues trial lawyers have with legal finance companies and why they often dislike utilizing law suit funding for their clients.
For these reasons and others, Lawsuit Financial recently issued a press release announcing its' "relief for attorney's legal funding pain points".

Lawsuit Financial's experienced staff of attorneys and paralegals understand that attorneys dislike the litigation financing paperwork requirements; that is why we have implemented streamlined paperwork requirements. We understand attorneys' concerns that increases in pre settlement funding profits could impede the settlement process; that is why we have implemented our capped lawsuit funding policy. We also understand personal injury clients (since we represented similarly situated clients for almost 25 years) and the important fact that prompt and fair legal funding service will prevent them from constantly pressing their attorneys for money or for early resolution of their case; that is why we have implemented a 24 hour case funding underwriting policy. We are also the only legal finance company who has announced a policy of fast and fair negoitation of lawsuit financing profits when case results fall short of the amount predicted at the time our litigation funding was placed.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides, streamline processed, 24 hour, capped (and potentially negotiated) personal injury litigation funding including, but not limited to Auto Accident cases, Premises Liability cases, Medical Malpractice cases and many other types of personal injury cases. Contact us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com or call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848). The call and the advice are absolutely free. We specialize in assisting "David" in beating "Goliath".

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark: