Lawsuit Finance Blog

Is there any one out there that doesn't know that distracted driving is dangerous to you and to your fellow drivers? The newest distraction (adding to the "old" distractions of eating, putting on make-up, looking at yourself in the rear view mirror, looking at and talking to a passenger, yelling at your kids, talking on your mobile phone, dialing your mobile phone, changing your radio station, looking in your glove box, etc) is texting while driving. According to a new study, conducted by Virgina Tech Transportation Institute, texting makes a driver's collision risk 23 times more likely than when he or she is not texting. I don't know about you, but I did not need a study to tell me that distracted driving causes accidents, injuries, and, tragically, death on our nation's roads. Isn't it time we regulated this conduct and passed laws to ban these types of activities while driving? The Virginia Tech study was done by mounting a video camera inside the cab of a semi truck. Aside from the "23 times more likely" statistic, the study also concluded that texting drivers (whether sending or receiving) took their eyes off the road for a full five seconds, time enough to drive the length of a football field and more, if traveling at highway speeds. The clear message of the study is that we should not be engaging in this activity while driving. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Director, Tom Dingus, says the study's findings could not be clearer:

You should never do this...It should be illegal.

Despite this study's and many other studies' conclusions, texting while driving is still legal in many states. Now, I ask you, do you want the common carrier of your valuable goods to be texting while driving? Do you want the school bus driver of your children to be engaging in this dangerous activity on the way to school? Do you want your driving-aged children or their friends to be able to do this? Or, how about drivers who are approaching your loved ones' vehicles on a two lane rural highway? Pretty scary when discussed in those terms, isn't it? Well, in most states, all of the drivers listed above can text, and text legally. The National Safety Council has called for a nationwide ban on mobile phone use while driving. Obviously, the ban should and, supposedly would, include texting activities. As I pen this post, 14 states plus Washington, D.C. ban texting while driving. Every state in the union should pass sensible legislation banning this very dangerous form of distracted driving, and do so, as soon as possible. I, for one, do not need to see another study to ask the same question that Peter Paul and Mary asked, in song, years ago: "How many deaths will it take 'till they know, that too many people have died?" Would the law be easy to enforce? No, it wouldn't. Would it cause some to hide their texting making the activity even more dangerous? Yes, it would. However, the majority of our citizens know a good law when they see it; most will obey the law, if it becomes the law. If the frequency of activity is reduced, less accidents will result and less injuries and deaths will occur. Sensible legislation is a necessary start; Lawsuit Financial encourages the legislators in all 36 states that have not passed anti-texting legislation to consider well-reasoned legislation and pass it, as soon as possible. Your constituent's and your children's lives are at stake. Lawsuit Financial is a leading provider of auto accident legal finance services all over the country. Auto accident lawsuit funding is provided to people who are injured or disabled in an accident and suffer financial setbacks as a result. As a provider of litigation funding services, we benefit, indirectly, from the filing of lawsuits. Accidents and injuries result in lawsuits; investing in lawsuits is how we make our living. As such, we do not derive an economic benefit from promoting texting bans and other safety measures. We do so because it is the right thing to do; the safety of our citizens is important to us and to every trial lawyer who has ever represented a seriously injured person or the estate of their deceased loved ones. It is time for all of us to stand up for safety.

This post has been borrowed, with permission, from the Michigan Auto Law Blog by Steven M. Gursten

As a no-fault insurance lawyer in Michigan, I constantly see victims of car accidents and truck accidents have their legitimate no-fault claims denied and delayed, forcing them to hire a lawyer for claims that should have been paid immediately. Behind every wrongfully delayed or denied claim is a family whose lives have been turned upside down, because an insurance company refused to do what it promised.

To make matters worse, Michigan is one of only four states that doesn’t protect its consumers from wrongful denial of no-fault insurance benefits. The insurance lawyers of Michigan Auto Law and the Michigan Association for Justice are asking that you join us in holding Michigan insurance companies accountable by signing this petition.

The petition will show you support a package of Michigan house bills that would nix insurance practices that deny coverage and create consequences for “bad faith” behavior by insurance corporations.
.
The bills include laws that would:

* Strengthen consumer protections by punishing insurance companies that illegitimately deny consumer claims with penalties, including a $1 million fine.

* Punish corporate leaders who knowingly create, foster or encourage wrongful denial of claims by making the misconduct a felony that could result in four years in prison plus a $50,000 fine.

* Create a whistle-blower protection plan to shield employees who report that an insurance company is engaging in wrongful denial of claims.

Please consider signing this petition to protect your rights in case of an auto accident in Michigan.

Steven M. Gursten,a friend and colleague of mine, is head of Michigan Auto Law, which specializes in insurance benefits and car accidents throughout Michigan. Steve has served on the executive board of the Michigan Association for Justice, where he co-chairs the Automobile Accident No-Fault Committee.

Lawsuit Financial strongly supports legislation in Michigan that will protect its consumers from a wrongful denial of insurance benefits. This is important legislation and if you are a Michigan resident, I urge you to sign this petition; then, notify your state legislators and ask for their support. Thank you!

Millions of people are killed or seriously injured in automobile accidents, each year. In most accidents, there is an at fault party and a victim, and in many, a lawsuit ensues. In your lawsuit, your lawyer will be required to prove fault and prove the seriousness of your injury. Because there are many lawsuits filed each year, they can often take a long time to move down the court docket and into a position to resolve in your favor. Because you have been injured, you may have missed work or worse, lost your job. The financial strain not only seriously impacts your life, it also impacts your case. A financially desperate plaintiff is not a positive influence on settlement negotiations. Often, you are too willing to settle for too little, too soon. Your attorney is working on a contingency, so legal fees are not an issue. But, how do you survive, financially, while you wait for a trial or a settlement?

You have options; most of them are risky. Credit card advances, home equity loans, second mortgages all require repayment whether you win your lawsuit or lose it. With the home equity or second mortgage, your house is at stake if you lose the case.

For many people, the best option, although expensive if you win your case, is legal funding. This is usually a non-recourse cash advance ('non-recourse' means that repayment is excused if you lose your case). Also known as auto accident litigation funding or litigation finance, this method of receiving the cash you need now carries no risk to the plaintiff, because it is completely forgiven if you lose the case.

Lawsuit Financial cash advances are different than many of the companies we compete with. It is important to understand some of the differences and make comparisons. Here are a few:

1. With many legal finance companies, there are application fees, processing fees and other start up, 'junk' fees fees. We charge no upfront fees of any kind.

2. Lawsuit Financial caps its rates; with some companies, monthly fees continue, on and on, until your case resolves and the company is paid. Sometimes, these fees can grow to an enormous number and actually impede your ability to settle your case.

3. At Lawsuit Financial, we believe that expert case evaluation or underwriting is our responsibility. If we do it correctly, with our capped rates, our funding principal and profit should not effect the settlement of your case. In case it does, if the case settles short of everyone's expectations, Lawsuit Financial is the only company in America that guarantees a settlement appropriate compromise so that you, the injured party, gets your fair share of the settlement proceeds.

4. Lawsuit financing is not a lawsuit loan. Loans require you to repay regardless of case outcome; if you lose your case, you must still pay-off a loan. With legal financing, we are actually investing in the outcome of your litigation. Thus, if you lose your case, you owe Lawsuit Financial nothing.

5. With appropriate cooperation from your lawyer, we can have lawsuit cash in your hands within 24 hours of your application.

6. Because of our significant expertise, we can get you funding for your lawsuit when others can't.

So, don't settle your case for pennies on the dollar to raise needed funds for you and your family. You don't have to lose your house or your car to make ends meet. Consider and discuss lawsuit financing from Lawsuit Financial, instead. The call to 877-377-SUIT is free; the advice is priceless. Our friendly paralegal staff is standing by to take your call.

Police officers have a duty to protect and serve the members of the communities they work for. However, time and again, it seems that a number of officers may use excessive force against those they have sworn to protect; many instances of this excessive use of force involve the use of tasers. Even more disturbing, is the use of tasers on minors, which may lead to serious physical and mental injury to a child. This concern failed to prevent two police officers from tasering 3 children in Southern Illinois, an event that has lead to litigation.

According to a recently filed lawsuit, two officers responded to a call at an adolescent center in Jefferson County, Illinois. Upon their arrival at the scene, they pushed 2 minors onto their beds and tasered them, allegedly, without provocation. According to a spokesperson at the adolescent center, the children had committed no crime and had been linked to no wrongdoing.

This lawsuit raises the important issue of non-lethal use of force by police. Tasers are not meant to kill, however, various studies have shown that their use, especially on children and younger adults, can lead to serious injury. This has not stopped certain police officers from using these weapons with little regard for safety. Police administrators should consider the cost of taser use, as well as appropriate regulation and training. Tasers are not toys; rather they can be a dangerous, sometimes deadly, weapon.

Police officer use of tasers requires restraint and absolute necessity. Taser use should be restricted to controlling only those that pose a threat to others. Proper training in the use and power of tasers should be implemented to all officers. Until stricter regulation of taser use is enacted (or enforced, where regulation already exists), occurrences like the one that prompted the above mentioned lawsuit will continue. Hopefully, this lawsuit, and others like it can bring focus to this issue and a common sense approach to taser use by law enforcement.

Lawsuit Financial supports any effort made by local and national police associations to regulate the use of tasers and train officers to use them appropriately. We call on state and federal legislators to enact appropriate legislation to limit the use of tasers and punish abusers. Police officers should be about making all of us safer; they should be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

If you or someone you love has been injured by a taser or in any type of police brutality or excessive force situation, have hired a lawyer and filed a lawsuit, and the injury or disability has caused you financial hardship, Lawsuit Financial can assist you with non-recourse lawsuit funding. These funds should be used for a necessary purpose as they can be expensive if you win your case. However, the money is yours to keep, free of charge, if you lose your case. Whether you have suffered a taser injury or any other personal injury, Lawsuit Financial is here to help you. Call us, toll free, at 877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit www.lawsuitfinancial.com

More often than not, people with valuable litigation have difficulty sustaining themselves, financially, through a long and difficult legal process. Lawsuit financing offers you a choice when you are involved in litigation, but are unable to afford monthly payments, house notes, car payments, groceries, rent, or other essentials. If you are already in financial distress, a disabling accidental injury simply adds to an already existing problem.

Lawsuit Financial offers a solution for people who are disabled, in litigation over their injury or disability, have poor credit, are facing foreclosure or eviction or have other, serious and immediate, financial needs. Your legal finance company offers non-recourse cash advances, based upon a professional assumption of the potential value of the funded case. You pay no monthly payment; in fact, no payments of any kind are due unless and until the case resolves successfully at terms that are sufficient to repay the advance.

Clients and attorneys often ask: 'What's the catch'? 'What happens if we lose the case'? 'Will that event create additional indebtedness'? The short answer is 'no'. Litigation funding cash advances are 'non-recourse'; if your case is unsuccessful, the advance is excused. That is right; if you lose your case, you do not have to repay lawsuit financial. Further, since a financially distressed client is not a positive influence on settlement negotiations, taking away that financial distress will make it much easier for you to pursue your case to its just conclusion without worrying that you have to settle your case to pay your bills.

Most companies require documentation to complete an advance; there can be a substantial difference in the amount of paperwork required. Lawsuit Financial, for instance, requires a completed one-page intake form and one-page attorney questionnaire form (completed by the handling attorney) to be submitted along with no more than 10-15 pages of case records that tend to support the request. For auto accident legal funding, for instance, your attorney would submit the completed forms along with a police report, the front page of a pleading (case caption and case number identifies the litigation), proof of insurance coverage and policy limits, and medical documentation limited to a description of the injury and its relationship to the accident. Often, case reviews and funding decisions can occur on the same day. Upon approval and contract execution, your money can be available on the same day or next day; there are no prolonged "waiting periods" to get the money you need, now.

Litigation plaintiffs are often forced to settle valuable cases for less than they actually deserve. Big corporate and big insurance will use their significant financial resources to prolong lawsuits, hoping that you will settle for pennies on the dollar, lacking the financial strength to hold out for appropriate results. Litigation finance services provide you with this precious commodity: time to pursue justice. Leverage our legal funding money to buy the time you need to obtain case appropriate results for you and your family.

Litigation financing is not a perfect solution and it is not for everyone. But, if you are already having a difficult time making ends meet, legal finance services may permit you to continue to fight, aggressively, to the end. It is not a process to take lightly, but it merits your consideration in the right strategic situation.

Here is another bit of ridiculousness by our friends, the tort-reformers. I bring it to you as a public service, kind of a "know your foes" post. A Republican internet rag called FlashReport published by someone who started a 'College Republican Club' at his community college, joined the 'Young Americans for Freedom' (a "conservative youth" organization), served as State President of the California Republican Assembly, and as Vice Chairman, South, of the California Republican Party, invited the author and the attached 'article' to appear on its website. It purports to do so as "part of an ongoing effort to bring original, thoughtful commentary" to the public. The article, entitled "Reforming Lawsuit Abuse Can Help Rebuild California" is written by someone named Marko Mlikotin, the "Northern California Regional Director for California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse". By the way, I have no interest in either of these gentlemen's party affiliations nor do I criticize their political choices. I comment only on their political perspective and agenda; this is, clearly, not an effort to bring 'original, thoughtful commentary to the public'

The author laments about California's $24 billion budget deficit; he complains about ballot measures, tax increases and budget cuts and says that the state must make it easier for state employers to be more profitable and create jobs. Marko, I agree with you, so far. Does Marko stop here and give us some sensible solutions to California's problems? Of course not! His solution? Same as Shakespeare's, 'let's kill all the lawyers'! He claims that California is "one of the most litigious state in the country" and that lawsuits cost Californians more than $32 billion dollars per year or $3300 per year per family of four. He cites no source for the statistics he claims, however, for the sake of this post, I'll concede the stats. Eliminate the lawsuits, he suggests, and you will address the budget problem because the money could be used to create jobs, purchase products, and generate tax revenues.

Remarkably, after reporting these unsubstantiated statistics (which, again, I have conceded, for the sake of this post) he leaps to the conclusion that these statistics create the problem of "lawsuit abuse". I kid you not, that's what he calls his unsubstantiated claim that there are $32 billion paid out in litigation each year. He says the 'issue' is largely ignored by elected officials and today's candidates (thankfully, in my humble opinion). After all, none other than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (you know them, the 'anti-consumer', inventor of the phrases "lawsuit abuse" and "tort reform"), ranks California as the fifth worst legal climate in the country. Marko cites his own organization's surveys about the injury to the economy and paints an ominous picture of the future ( apparently, 98% of those polled-his own organization's poll- think lawsuits hurt the economy-I suppose this depends on how you bend the questions and who you ask, yes?). Then, he uses another of the Chamber's favorite coined phrases! He says that business and government are "victims of frivolous lawsuits". Cities and counties are forced to hire attorneys and fund court settlements rather than provide public services, he says. He rails on and demands that the state's elected leaders reform "lawsuit abuse" and states that all citizens lose unless we control and out of control legal system by cutting the fat associated with "frivolous lawsuits" (He likes those 'Chamber phrases'). If we do this, we will :"strengthen our flat lined economy". He wants a legal system, he says, "that facilitates justice, not greed".

OK, OK, I've heard enough, too. How is it "abuse" to file a lawsuit and win it? If the case is "frivolous", it should be thrown out of court, or, at least, it should lose, shouldn't it? I have practiced law for 32 years; I assure you, judges will very willingly dismiss, prematurely, any lawsuit that they do not believe belongs in their courtroom. And, lawyers who make their livings on contingency fees ( they only collect if they win), make nothing by filing 'frivolous' or 'abusive' lawsuits. There is, simply, no incentive for them to do so.

Sorry Marko, calling something "abuse" or "frivolous" doesn't make it so. What statistics do you have to show that the lawsuits that produced your statistics were an 'abuse' of the system? If "frivolous", why were they successful? Why would 'frivolous' lawsuits produce $32 billion in litigation revenue? The answer, of course, is that serious lawsuits are successful, not frivolous ones. Show me (and your California public) your statistics. Show me statistics that the majority of litigation in California is not meritorious, not worthy of filing, or not worthy of the verdicts achieved. And I don't want to hear about one mis-reported, unusual case; I want to see a real trend! Then, maybe, I'll take you seriously.

Instead, you insult my (and your California public's) intelligence, cite unsubstantiated financial statistics, then laugh off all serious litigation as 'abuse' or 'frivolous'. It is not 'greedy' to attempt to address wrongs in court; it is our constitutionally mandated right. It is how a civil society addresses wrong doers and wrong-doing. It is greedy to invent concepts like tort reform and the other cute phrases used to suggest a need for it. Tort reform gives wrong-doing and wrong-doers a free pass to commit atrocities. If given a free pass, history suggests that doctors will practice medicine with less care, drug companies will make more dangerous drugs, manufacturers will make more dangerous products, roads and bridges will be less safe, financial advisors will take advantage of their clients (less regulation created Bernie Madoff, true?). Everyone will be less safe, but hey, who cares, we fixed the economy.

Here are some questions for you young Republicans: (Each one begs another.) What happened to the Republicans who supported personal responsibility? [Does anything make a wrong-doer more personally responsible than a lawsuit and a verdict?] What happened to the constitutional Republicans who support less government? [Should the legislative branch control the judicial branch?] What happened to the Republicans who want private industry to pay their share and not rely on public funds/assistance? [Should a private insurance company appropriately compensate a person their insured severely injured or should that person go on government assistance?] Do you really oppose bailouts? [Then, why are you so willing to bailout insurance companies on the backs of the least fortunate of our society, the seriously injured and disabled?]

Lawsuit Financial has a mission, just like you do. It is, as stated by you, the same mission: Lawsuit Financial wants a 'legal system that facilitates justice, not greed'. If the system were not already stacked in the favor of corporate interests and insurance companies, there would be no need for my service, lawsuit funding. A person would be able to right a wrong, simply and fairly, without the need for interim lawsuit financial support. The vast majority of greed in the legal system exists on the side of the tort-reformers, Chambers, insurance companies, 'lawsuit abuse' organizations and other big-business interests that try to prevent civil justice and slam the courthouse doors on society's victims. A system that 'facilitates justice' allows all citizens access to a fair and non-political courthouse and a chance to right wrongs. Over recent years, politics have been allowed to creep into the courtroom and this phenomenon has affected all of our rights in a very negative way. We must turn back from this legalized courtroom seizure and return to a justice-based court system, before it is too late. Join me, Marko, won't you?

Cerebral palsy is a life-long disability, which involves disorders of movement control and muscle coordination. It is caused by brain damage that occurs before, during or immediately after birth, and it is commonly associated with seizures, sensory impairments and cognitive limitation.

Thousands of children are diagnosed, each year, with cerebral palsy, as a result of medical errors occurring at the time of birth. Most cases of cerebral palsy are not related to medical errors, but some children would not have suffered a brain injury had doctors, hospitals or nurses followed the proper standards of medical care during labor and delivery. If complications are encountered during labor or delivery, it is a medical provider’s responsibility to identify potential problems, react appropriately, and follow the proper standard of medical care to deal with the situation. However, mistakes can be made.

When cerebral palsy results from a medical mistake which could have been prevented, financial compensation may be available for the child. It is very important to retain an attorney who specializes, not only in medical malpractice cases, but in cerebral palsy medical malpractice cases.

With that in mind, I am pleased to report that, last week, attorneys Richard Lawrence and Patrick Beirne received the highest medical malpractice verdict in Ohio history. An Ohio jury awarded their client, the family of a child who developed cerebral palsy as the result of medical negligence, $31 million in compensatory damages. 8-year-old Leondo Stanziano, was born on December 11, 2000 at Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton, Ohio. The child suffered permanent brain damage resulting in cerebral palsy after being deprived of oxygen for 18 to 20 minutes during delivery. He now suffers from severe cerebral palsy, which has left him unable to speak, unable to walk and requiring 24-hour care. Within a week of the record-setting verdict, the matter has been settled for an undisclosed sum.

Congratulations to these two fine attorneys and to their clients for a hard fought victory. Compensation will not make the child well; nothing can do that, but the cost of caring for a severely disabled child should be borne by those who caused that disability, not by the innocent victims. This verdict and settlement will assure that the child's care needs are covered and that he will receive the best care possible under the circumstances. This is what serious litigation should be about: appropriate and sensible compensation for the victim; accountability, responsibility and future prevention incentive for the perpetrator. All seems to have been achieved with this result.

Lawsuit Financial is one of a very select group of legal finance companies with the legal and legal funding experience to evaluate and provide lawsuit funding in cerebral palsy cases. For a free analysis of your lawsuit funding situation, call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Two recent 4-3 opinions would suggest that the recent election of Diane Marie Hathaway to the Michigan Supreme Court is paying dividends to the cause of justice in Michigan.

In one case, he Detroit News is reporting that the high court has ruled that a dead mother's family can sue a hospital and doctors for $1.4 million in damages for loss of household services. Housework, cooking, caring for children, trash removal, etc. would qualify for damages under the ruling. Attorneys for Monroe, Michigan's Mercy Memorial Hospital unsuccessfully argued at both the Court of Appeals level and the before the Supreme Court that "household services" are part of a non-economic recovery, thus lumped into legislatively capped, non-economic (as part of the 'pain and suffering' recovery) damages. Both courts said "no", that household services are economic damages, thus not subject to the cap.

The "cap", by the way, is part of legislative tort reform passed by conservatives during the John Engler administration. "Caps" on damages restrict juries and judges in dispensing justice in Michigan and keeps them from appropriately punishing the offenders. To merge economic issues into the non-economic cap would have caused an even greater injustice to an already unjust system in Michigan.

The family's complaint had alleged that the deceased, Laurie Ann Greene, bled to death from the site of a Cesarean section, due to the hospital's negligence.

In the other case, also a 4-3 decision, the Detroit Free Press reports that the high court allowed a gunshot victim to sue a Detroit 911 operator for intentional infliction of emotional distress for asking the distressed caller if she was a “mental patient". The caller had indicated that she had been shot in the head. After berating and insulting her, the operator finally did send police to the caller's location. The police could not locate her and EMS arrived after the victims son, from his Minnesota location, called Detroit Police. The article does not mention what the legal controversy was. I would presume that there was a governmental immunity argument made here. Clearly, there was a breach of duty. 911 operators should take citizens' calls, compassionately listen to their concerns, and dispatch the appropriate authority to their locations. That is all. To berate or ridicule a caller is not only inexcusable, it is now, in Michigan, actionable in court. Congratulations to the plaintiff in the case, Lorraine Hayes, and her attorneys for a hard-fought victory.

Our citizens are responsible for this sudden turn-around in civil justice. Late last year, they voted to promote Diane Hathaway to the Supreme Court, rejecting the re-election bid of the very conservative former Chief Justice Clifford Taylor. In next year's election, another very conservative Supreme Court Justice, Robert Young, is running for re-election. It is extremely important that our citizens realize the importance of the civil justice system to our basic civil rights and the importance of their vote in promoting civil justice. Pro-big business, anti-citizen justices, like Justice Young, do not stand up for the rights of the average citizen and Hathaway's recent election has helped to reverse a 15 year trend of anti-justice, anti-citizen decisions from our highest court. When Robert Young runs for re-election, send him packing. Maybe he can open a law office with Clifford Taylor, representing the concerns of big business.

Lawsuit Financial provides legal finance services to injured and disabled people involved in pending lawsuits. If you are injured or disabled, have a lawyer handling your case, are having financial difficulties, and are considering a settlement (because of those financial difficulties) that your lawyer says is too low, call Lawsuit Financial, now. The toll free, no obligation lawsuit funding help line number is 1-877-377-SUIT (7848). One of our friendly legal funding paralegals will analyze you situation for free. We finance auto accident cases and all other personal injury litigation. Call Lawsuit Financial, or visit our website.

Lawsuit Financial will continue to speak out in favor of pro-justice issues. We implore all citizens to do the same.

Is Justice Being Served? This question, in the context of the infamous McDonalds Coffee case, is more than a clever play on words; it is an interesting question to ask when one raises or discusses the case and the assault launched on the civil justice system that became a by-product of its' verdict.

I have recently been in contact with Susan Saladoff, who is directing (and trying to raise money to produce) an important movie about our civil justice system and the infamous case that launched pro-business, anti-consumer attacks on it. I was permitted to view a short version of the film and it is a terrific eye-opening experience for "pro-justice" supporters, like me, but, especially, for those casual observers who consider the case an example of "lawsuit abuse". “Hot Coffee ” will be produced by not-for-profit 501(c)(3) entity, thus, all donations to the film completely tax-deductible.

There is almost no one in America who has not heard of the case and the woman who spilled coffee on herself and 'collected millions'. The case became a poster child for the concept of 'frivolous lawsuits' and the injured woman, Stella Liebeck, became a symbol for outrageous and frivolous lawsuits in America; the "Stella" Awards, created by anti-justice, pro-big business forces, are given to the most outrageously frivolous lawsuits filed in a given year. Jerry Seinfeld devoted an episode of his famous show to ridicule the case; Kramer sues Java World after spilling a café latté on himself while trying to get a seat in a movie theater. Leno,
Letterman and others comedians have made jokes about the case, over the years.

But, is the case ridiculous? If so, why did a jury award $2.9 million dollars to 79 year old Stella, after a seven-day trial in 1994? Was McDonald’s caught off guard and, simply, out-lawyered? Was the verdict fair? Why is this case still talked about after so many years?

The best answer is that the case is completely mis-characterized by the press and misunderstood by the public. Pro-business tort-reformers have seized on this to develop their absurd, but effective, campaign about abuses in the civil justice system. They use the case to depict United States civil courts as places where people hit the lottery by filing 'frivolous' cases.

The 26 minute "short version" of the documentary, reveals what really happened to Stella; we meet her grandson (he was the driver of the car, not Stella, one of many common public misconceptions). We find out that the vehicle was not moving at the time of the accident; we see and hear from her doctor about the severe injury she suffered and see pictures of the grotesque permanent scarring on her inner thighs. The lawyers and several jurors are interviewed. We learn about the agenda of the tort-reform groups to create a public perception of out of control "lawsuit abuse" and how this misnomer affects the lives of everyday Americans. We discover who is funding this effort to restrict the public's access to the court system and will see and hear about other examples of so-called “frivolous” lawsuits. We learn the pocketbook motives of the tort-reformers. Political scientists, law school professors and consumer advocates are all interviewed. The film will demonstrate how the media was manipulated and used (a phenomenon that continues to this day). Most important of all, however, is the fact that the film exposes the political
agenda of the tort-reform movement.

What is that agenda, you ask? To prevent citizen access to the court system and to immunize big corporations from civil liability. Tort-reformers seek to limit amounts of recovery for legitimate and serious grievances by lobbying legislatures into placing caps on the amounts of money that victims can receive in court in many states, or, in some instances, to enact laws that prevent people from receiving their day in court, barring them from simple civil justice. Fine print on credit card contracts, for example, prevent people from court system access, in favor of restrictive arbitration. Why the deception? Money, of course! Tort-reformer big business interests want to keep more money and prevent seriously injured people from being appropriately compensated. This effort has never been about 'frivolous' cases; it has always been about serious cases worthy of serious compensation.

America: See this important movie; contribute to its production, and decide for yourself whether the McDonalds case was serious or frivolous, whether our justice system already has appropriate checks and balances against the filing of frivolous cases, and whether there is any justification for reforms that restrict the average American citizen's access to justice. Lawsuit Financial will continue to fight for civil justice and access to the civil justice system for all Americans.

Here is the production team of this important film:

SUSAN SALADOFF (Director) has practiced law for twenty-five years, representing injured victims of individual and corporate negligence, primarily in the area of medical malpractice. She is licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Oregon and began her career as a public interest lawyer with Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, now known as Public Justice, an organization that, for the last 25 years, has been at the forefront of keeping America’s courthouse doors open to all. She has been a board member for many years, and served as its 20th national President. She is a member of the American Association for Justice, the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, and the American Board of Trial Advocates. Her peers have recognized her as an Oregon Super Lawyer in 2006, 2007 and 2008. She is a graduate of Cornell University and George Washington University Law School, and has frequently lectured at the state and national levels in the areas of trial advocacy and medical malpractice. She has also produced, directed and edited several short documentaries involving clients for use at trial and in settlement.

CINDY LEE (Editor) – Credits include No End In Sight (Oscar nominee 2007, New York Film Critics Circle 2007 Best Documentary, Sundance Special Jury Prize 2006), Hotel Gramercy Park (Tribeca Film Festival 2008) and Manhattan, Kansas (SXSW Film Festival 2006). She was an additional editor on Swing State and an assistant editor on Half Nelson. Her television credits include: The Economies of Being Environmentally Conscious, a PBS series narrated by Brad Pitt.

MARTINA RADWAN (Director of Photography), DP on Ferry Tales, a film that was nominated for an Academy Award in 2004. She also recently completed filming a private project for Martin Scorcese as well as the feature Flannel Pajamas, which premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, and which Roger Ebert called “one of the wisest films I can remember about love and human intimacy.” Recently, Martina shot William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe, which premiered at Sundance 2009 and was picked up by Arthouse Films for a mid-2009 theatrical release.

CARLY HUGO (Producer), founding partner of The Group Entertainment, a NYC film production and talent management company. She was the Co-Producer of Peter and Vandy, starring Jason Ritter and Jess Weixler, which premiered in competition at the Sundance Film Festival 2009. She was an Associate Producer of Loggerheads (Sundance '05) and the Executive Producer of Buick Riviera (Cannes L'Atelier, Best Feature Film at Sarajevo '08). Carly is the Producer of The War Boys, starring Peter Gallagher and Victor Rasuk, and the Co-Producer of Beautiful Darling, a documentary about Warhol superstar Candy
Darling, which are both currently in post-production. She has three feature films in development. She is Executive Director of At Play Productions, a NYC theater company, and is the producer of the 24 Hour Plays Off-Broadway. She holds a B.A. in Film Studies from Columbia University.

If you are interested in contributing to this important project, please contact CARLY HUGO, Producer 212-868-5233, carly@thegroupentertainment.com, or SUSAN SALADOFF, Director 541-941-7507, ssaladoff@aol.com. Above all, when the film is completed, see it! Tell your friends about it! Support pro-justice causes and join Lawsuit Financial in working to destroy the myths of the tort-reformers.

A settlement has been reached between Clara County, CA and the parents of a bicyclist killed when a former sheriff's deputy apparently fell asleep at the wheel and drove his patrol car into a group of cyclists. The case settled for $2.3 Million. Other cases are still pending.

I often rant, at this location, about tort reform and the US Chamber's ridiculous crusade to classify all cases as frivolous and/or abusive. Here is a case where the county stepped up to the plate and did the right thing. The family has been reasonably compensated and the settlement avoids a painful trial. Craig Needham represented the family and Lawsuit Financial congratulates him on a job well done.

Auto Accident Cases are the most prevalent types of cases funded by Lawsuit Financial. Strategic use of legal funding can, and often does, enhance the value of a plaintiff's case by removing a plaintiff's financial pressure to settle early and inexpensively. If you have questions about the appropriate and/or strategic use of automobile accident lawsuit funding, or any other type of personal injury accident legal finance, please do not hesitate to call Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free, no obligation, consultation. Or, visit us on the world wide web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.