Posted On: April 22, 2009

$21.6 Million Verdict Not Enough-Attorney Wants $45 Million More: Fair? Justice? Absolutely!

You read a lot about the need for 'tort reform' to protect big business and big insurance from overly generous, out of control juries and, of course, from those "greedy trial lawyers". Typically, 'tort reform', as it is practiced in most state legislatures, centers on three things: 1. Capping general damages. 2. Limiting punitive damage awards and/or sanctions 3. Reducing or eliminating liability or duties owed in certain situations. One would think that lawsuits are never about punishing safety violations or providing incentive to correct them. Lawsuits are, in the minds of the big business, big insurance publicity campaign, designed to pull the wool over the public's eyes about 'greedy plaintiffs' and 'greedy trial lawyers'. Well, here is a terrific example of the other side of the story and why 'tort reform' should never happen nationally, should never happen in states where it is not currently the law, and should be abolished in those states where it has been passed.

Four young adults were killed in the subject accident and, apparently, a fine attorney named Bob Pottroff, who specializes in train accidents, proffered evidence that the defendant, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, destroyed and withheld evidence that prevented the victims' families from recovering punitive damages from the jury. The original $21.6 million verdict was one of the largest wrongful death verdicts in Minnesota history, but, not enough, says Pottroff. Armed with evidence of the defendant's misconduct, he is asking for $45 million more and further, he has asked Washington County Judge Ellen Maas (who presided at the trial) to delay any appeal of the verdict until sanctions are awarded and paid. Attorneys for the railroad argue that the request is unconstitutional because it is, simply, a request for a substitute punitive damages award, which must be awarded by the trier of fact (in this case, the jury). The obvious problem with that request, in my humble opinion, is that it is the defendant's own misconduct that prevented the jury from getting its chance to rule on the issue.

The judge has 90 days to rule on sanctions. Pottroff accuses Burlington Northern of an "intentional, systematic pattern" of perjury, concealment, misrepresentation, and evidence tampering throughout the trial. This includes, for example, destroying evidence that the 8 foot stretch of track where the accident occurred was replaced the day before the accident. Defense attorneys also tried to blame a "rogue", "problem" employee-signal technician for the accident. Judge Maas scolded the defense reminding the courtroom that Burlington hired him and that he was no rogue.

Attorneys for the families also contend that evidence tampering prevented them from showing that the crossing gates were not working properly when the accident occurred. The railroad, of course, argued that the car drove around properly functioning gates. All four victims were 20 years of age or under; the driver, Brian Frazier, was 20 years old. The jury found that Burlington Northern was 90 % responsible for the accident and Frazier was 10% responsible. No money has been paid to anyone, six years after the accident. The families are hopeful that the judge's ruling will send a message to Burlington Northern and any other corporation that might attempt to manipulate the judicial system. "You can't play with families that way", said Denise Shannon, whose daughter was killed in the accident.

Yes, you can, Denise; stalling and stonewalling are very effective tools in the defense attorney's arsenal. These have been the tactics and strategies of defendants for as long as I have been an attorney. Now, I am not suggesting that all defendants go the extent of violating the law or the rules of professional conduct similar to what seems to have happened in this case, but the American Association of Justice's slogan that big business defendants "Delay, Deny, Confuse, Refuse" is an accurate statement of what plaintiffs with significant damages can expect when they pursue litigation. In my experience, all defendants stretch ("stretch, not "cross") ethical boundaries to prevent large outcomes and to create a financially desperate plaintiff.

"Where's the justice?" asked Cristy Frazier, Brian's mother. Where indeed.

The legal finance industry of which Lawsuit Financial is a part, was born out of frustration with conduct like just like this. The longer a case takes to resolve, the more desperate a disabled plaintiff becomes. Legal funding from a reputable lawsuit finance company, like Lawsuit Financial Corporation, will temporarily remove financial desperation, even the odds, and allow the plaintiff time to obtain and injury appropriate settlement. Whether you have lost a loved one or been injured in a train accident and need funding now, or need lawsuit funding for any other type of personal injury case call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT, or, visit www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

"Where's the justice", Cristy? It starts with a great, persistent, lawyer (you have one in Mr. Pottroff), continues with a fair judge and a responsible jury, and, if litigants need a little financial help along the way, Lawsuit Financial will try to leverage its money to buy time to get the justice they deserve. My condolences to all of those effected by this tragedy; may you continue to seek justice and may your efforts be rewarded, soon.


Posted On: April 20, 2009

Bus Accident Results in $27.5 Million Award for Amputated Leg

A Manhattan jury has awarded a New York woman $27.5 Million for leg injuries, resulting in amputation, caused when her leg was run over by a New York City Transit bus. The 45 year old woman has worn a prosthesis since the accident. The lawyer, whose terrific work got her this enormous verdict, is Ben Rubinowitz. Mr. Rubinowitz said that his client now feels "vindicated". “The transit authority went after her, calling her a liar. The problem that she has, it’s a lifelong injury, and whenever she looks down, she’ll have a constant reminder.”

So true. This is often the method used by insurance companies and corporate America after an accident caused by their negligence. "Blame the victim" is the name of the game. Another method or strategy often employed when a huge verdict is announced is to ask the judge to reduce it on the basis that it is excessive. In this case, the judge, rightfully in my opinion, disagreed. The Metropolitan Transit Authority will appeal the verdict. Wallace Gossett, an attorney for for the Authority, who did not try the case, said “This is just a jury verdict... the appellate courts won’t sustain a verdict of this magnitude.” Hmm....we'll see.

Bus Accidents are nothing new for New York City Transit. In recent months, juries have awarded three other plaintiffs a total of $11 million for their injuries; the agency is appealing all of them. In this era of corporate greed and corporate failure to accept responsibility for negligence and intentional conduct, it is not surprising that the Authority would appeal. Hopefully, sensible appellate judges will tell the authority what it needs to hear: Offer comprehensive training to your drivers; enroll them in pedestrian awareness education programs. Terminate repeat offenders. Constantly check driving records. Offer fair compensation to the victims; in my experience, the reason a case goes to trial is because a reasonable offer to avoid trial has not been made by the defense. Historically, it is the defense that chooses trial, not the plaintiff. The Metropolitan Transit Authority needs to re-think its policy toward settlement in these cases.

Bus Accident or Auto Accident cases are excellent candidates for lawsuit funding. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in a bus accident, auto accident, or any other type of injury accident, you may be experiencing financial difficulties as the result of your injuries or disabilities. House payments, rent payments, car payments, medical bills, food, temporary shelter, household assistance are all available by obtaining legal finance from Lawsuit Financial. Call us, toll free, at 877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Posted On: April 13, 2009

Justice Finally in the Works for Michigan Auto Accident Victims?

After many years of suffering caused, primarily, by appellate judicial appointments of the pro-insurance Engler administration, seriously injured auto accident victims, previously shut out by conservative judicial interpretations of the "so-called" threshold for tort recovery, may finally begin to receive justice in Michigan.

Some brave Michigan lawmakers are finally taking steps to legislate a reversal or modification of a controversial 2004 Michigan Supreme Court decision. In Kreiner v Fischer, the state's highest court handed down a decision that has acted as a shield for negligent and drunk drivers, permitting them to cause serious injuries to innocent victims, with absolutely no consequence to the perpetrator nor remuneration to the victim. The decision applied a significant injury threshold that was not contained in the Michigan No-Fault statute and it has denied justice, from 2004 to the present day, to countless Michigan citizens who have sought damages after suffering a variety of serious, disabling injuries. Essentially, the issues have been how serious an injury or disability is by making an erroneous inquiry into the duration of the impairment, a determination that was never contemplated by the statute. To quote Justice Cavanaugh's thoughtful dissent in the Kreiner case:

" The plain and unambiguous language of the statutory definition of “serious impairment of body function” does not set forth any quantum of time the judge or jury must find dispositive when determining whether a serious impairment of body function has occurred. Therefore, the duration of the impairment is not an appropriate inquiry. The majority noticeably departs from accepted principles of statutory interpretation when it concludes that certain temporal factors should be considered when evaluating whether the serious impairment of body function threshold has been met. For example, the majority reasons that “the type and length of treatment required,” “the duration of the impairment,” “the extent of any residual impairment,” and “the prognosis for eventual recovery” are relevant factors to consider when making the threshold determination...It is equally evident that the majority uses the facts of the Kreiner case to effectively create a more rigorous threshold requirement than that mandated by the Legislature."

Lawsuit Financial Corporation supports well reasoned legislation that clarifies the Michigan no-fault tort threshold and eliminates the erroneous Kreiner standard. Michigan citizens are encouraged to write to your state representatives and/or state senators to support this effort.


Posted On: April 1, 2009

"Independent" Medical Exams Are Defense Medical Exams: Plaintiffs Beware!

"If you did a truly pure report you’d be out on your ears and the insurers wouldn’t pay for it. You have to give them what they want, or you’re in Florida. That’s the game, baby.” Would you ever, in your wildest imagination, expect those words to be uttered by a medical doctor? Welcome to the real world of litigation in America. You have heard cries for "tort reform". You have heard that trial lawyers are evil and that lawsuits are the causes of all kinds of ailments in our country. But the quote above speaks volumes about the tort system and how seriously injured people are mistreated by insurance companies and doctors across the country. Their crime? For having the audacity to get hurt in a setting where an insurance company is responsible for their compensation. Whether your case involves a work injury, auto injury, medical mistake, product defect or any other kind of personal injury, once the insurance company is on notice of the claim, the race is on to get you "independently" examined by a doctor, one or their doctors, one who is compensated for performing numerous similar exams, one who makes a six and sometimes seven figure income doing so. In the Detroit area, we call tort reform "tort deform" and we call an "independent medical exam" what it really is: a "defense medical exam".

Query: If you are the doctor and these exams are your golden eggs, are you going to kill the golden goose who laid them at your office steps by making honest calls in conducting these exams? In "A World of Hurt: Exams of Injured Worker Fuel Mutual Mistrust", New York Times writer, N.R. Kleinfield, exposes a well known fact in legal circles: The medical reports of these hired guns to their employers, following these examinations, whether there are positive findings or not, are "routinely tilted to benefit insurers by minimizing or dismissing injuries".

This is a serious problem for the injured or disabled because the examiner, usually retired from active practice, still has the medical credentials to impress a judge or a jury. When there are conflicting medical opinions, there are conflicts in the medical evidence presented to the trier of fact. These conflicts can lead to contentious litigation which can often take years. The injured plaintiff must go through multiple exams and contest the litigation for months, often years, until he or she finally gives up or settle for pennies on the dollar. If the case is brought to trial, the trial of fact is presented with conflicting viewpoints of the injury and its severity, and is forced to choose between one or the other. Is this justice for the injured or disabled?

While there are certainly examples of people who suffered mild injury or no injury and received treatment or over-treatment by an unscrupulous doctor, I invite you to read this important article and judge the cases and examples cited for yourselves.

Lawsuit Financial will continue to do its part in the fight for justice. If you have been injured in an auto accident, construction accident, by a medical mistake, a defective product or the neighbor's dog, you are probably pursuing litigation and experiencing the kind of anti-justice tactics that the article references. You are probably involved in contentious litigation, with little or no money coming in. You are probably considering an early and quick settlement that will, likely, cost you thousand, even ten of thousands of dollars. Don't settle you case for peanuts at the point of a financial gun. Lawsuit Financial provides legal funding, a non-recourse cash advance contingent upon the outcome of your litigation. If you win your case, you pay us back out of your winnings; if you lose the case, you keep our money, free of charge with no repayment obligation and no strings attached. Hopefully, you will use the money to fill a serious need like house or rent payments, car payments, groceries and other necessities. Lawsuit funding provides you with the time you need to get the money you deserve from your lawsuit. Hopefully, a well placed legal cash advance can lessen the impact of the kind of tactics used by the companies and doctors discussed in this important article. And, the next time you have a chance, hug a trial lawyer and thank him or her for championing the cause of justice in America.