Lawsuit Finance Blog

I came across an article in the Ocean City Maryland News and thought "here we go again"!. An outfit calling itself the Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (can you spell "Chamber of Commerce") has taken the unusual measure of placing ads on the backs of city buses in Ocean City stating "Don't get Burned by Lawsuit Abuse". The apparent strategy is that numerous legislators and civic leaders vacation in Ocean City, MD during the summer. The outfit hopes that the campaign will be seen by them and "educate the public that frivolous lawsuits filed in the state’s judicial system adversely effect more than just the plaintiff and the defendant". They claim to fear that "Lawsuit Abuse" increases medical costs and scares doctors away from their practices It is an old and tiresome argument. It is also a bunch of baloney!

Listen to these quotes from the Executive Director of the Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, a man by the name of Todd Lamb:

"Lawsuit abuse effects everyone...it increases medical costs and scares doctors from practicing in rural areas such as Worcester County, which makes it hard for the general public to find a good doctor in close proximity to their homes..." Baloney!

But this is the one that wins the "Biggest Bunch of Baloney Award" from Lawsuit Financial:

"Personal injury lawyers who make their living off of claims like this often encourage people to sue even if they aren’t injured,” said Lamb, “and unfortunately, when someone has a legitimate claim, it takes a very long time to get their day in court and eventual justice because the system is clogged with ridiculous lawsuits.”

Give me a break! "Even if they aren't injured"?! I ask members of the public or the legal profession who are reading this post: How many lawyers who practice law on a contingency fee basis and who advance litigation costs from their own pockets would file a "frivolous" lawsuit? How many lawyers who practice law on a contingency fee basis and pay for litigation costs out of their own pockets would 'encourage people to sue even if they aren't injured'? The answer is: ZERO! You don't believe me? Well, use your own common sense. What incentive does a lawyer spending his own money, while waiting for a contingency fee, have to file an essentially worthless action? All right thinking people, whether trial lawyers or not, should speak out against these lies!

As the 38 year veteran lawyer featured in the article says in the article: Our system of justice has built in curbs to prevent the filing or pursuit of frivolous suits. Lawyers who pursue frivolous lawsuits can be punished for pursuing them. A frivolous lawsuit costs only a bad lawyer money in fees, costs and fines. It costs doctors, product makers, and insurance companies nothing. What does cost doctors and insurance company large amounts of money, you ask? Again, the answer is obvious to anyone with any common sense: Serious lawsuits about serious injuries and life-changing circumstances caused by serious breaches of conduct or neglect, by doctors or product makers against innocent members of the public should result in serious verdicts for the plaintiffs who bring them.

Why scream "lawsuit abuse"? Why argue that 'frivolous' lawsuits are expensive? Because the 'tort-reformers' want you to think that serious lawsuit are 'frivolous'. What will that kind of thinking do to society? Instead of private insurance companies paying for the victims of serious injuries caused by serious safety breaches (as they should), public funds (in the form of welfare, medicaid,medicare or other publicly funded program) will be required. This will increase your taxes. It is nothing more than a corporate bailout or corporate welfare. Is that what we want? Haven't we seen enough of that? What happened to personal responsibility?

America: Do not be fooled by this charade. It is well financed, well marketed, and well publicized. But, it is ill conceived. Why? Because it is based on a false premise, the 'big lie', as I have called it. Large amounts of money are not being handed out on 'frivolous' lawsuits. That is the rule. Are there some silly sounding exceptions? Sure there are, but they are still 'exceptions' and they are few and far between. When you investigate, even some of the silly sounding cases are not as silly as they sound. State and national chambers of commerce represent big business interests. They do not represent the people. When you are seriously injured or disabled, a trial lawyer will stand up for your rights and pursue them; he/she will pursue justice on your behalf, spending his/her own money in the process and wait to paid from funds his/her hard work make possible. It is a noble calling, worthy or praise and thanks.

If you know a trial lawyer or have utilized the service of a trial lawyer at some point in your life, call and thank him/her for serving the cause of justice for the "little guy" against big-business interests and organizations like the one in Maryland whose sole purpose is to restrict your right to protection from harm. Lawsuit Financial is taking a well-publicized stand against these dangerous organizations and the "big lie" being spewed by the tort reformers. Join with us. Call your senator, congressman, state senator or representative and tell them that you are for an individual's right to pursue justice in America and against the nonsense of preventing access to justice by disguising it with words like 'frivolousness' or 'abuse'. And fellow citizens: Be safe out there.

It occurs to me that I have, at this location, explained the cases that lawsuit funding can and should be used for, but that, maybe, I have not adequately explained the strategy behind the use of the service. Lawsuit Funding, Legal Finance, Pre Settlement Funding, Litigation Funding, Lawsuit Financing, Personal Injury cash Advance, or whatever you wish to call it, is a method of providing needed cash to pending litigation plaintiffs to provide staying power to wait out the lengthy legal process and get maximum value for their personal injury case. Why is this an important tool? Because a financially desperate plaintiff is not a positive influence on settlement negotiations.

The core purpose of legal funding should be to improve case results by removing the plaintiff's financial incentive to settle early and cheap. Insurance companies have three very valuable things that most plaintiffs lack:

1. Money

2. Power

3. Time

Time is used strategically by insurance companies; they "delay, deny, confuse and refuse" and use the lengthy process to their advantage to "starve" a needy plaintiff into a lower-than-full-value settlement. If an offer is made in a time a significant financial need (like when the plaintiff is behind on mortgage, car or health insurance payments), it is likely to be considered or accepted by the desperate plaintiff. In most states, an attorney is in a conflict of interest situation when it comes to loaning money to his/her client. Lawsuit Financial has a "hands off" policy when it comes to the handling of the case; we do not involve ourselves in the case in any way except to perfect a lien on the proceeds, if the case concludes successfully. Strategic litigation decisions are between attorney and client; attorneys will never find themselves answering to Lawsuit Financial. Thus, participation in our lawsuit finance program will not have any effect on the attorney-client relationship.

Clients can often receive funds within 24 hours of the application; it is easy to apply, online or by telephone, with one of our friendly para-professional lawsuit funding representatives. The attorney provides minimal case documentation; the documentation is reviewed by us, and, if an advance is approved, a contract is submitted for signature. We can usually have needed cash in a plaintiff's hands with 24 hours. Remember the plaintiff pays us nothing if the case is not resolved in the client's favor.

Life's obligations do not stop because of an accident. Lawsuit Financial is committed to keeping the client's valuable assets safe, while giving the attorney the time he/she needs to get a case-appropriate settlement. Strategic timing is the key; the right legal finance at the right time will produce additional case revenue for both attorney and client and the advance could, very likely, pay for itself out of proceeds it has made possible. If you have any questions about the appropriate and/or strategic use of litigation funding, automobile accident lawsuit funding, or any other type of personal injury accident lawsuit funding, please do not hesitate to call Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free, no obligation, consultation.

There is no way to foresee the future and prevent every tragedy from occurring, however we can learn from past mistakes and make changes in the way we behave and act to build a more promising future. A recent Boston Globe article tells the story of two firefighters that were killed battling a grease fire in a neighborhood restaurant. The gross negligence of three parties resulted in a deadly volume of grease back up in the restaurant’s air ducts. City ordinance required that restaurant air ducts be cleaned quarterly to prevent grease build-up that may cause devastating fires. Workers at the restaurant, the restaurant's landlord in charge of maintaining quality standards, and a professional cleaning service hired to clean the air ducts (they cleaned the stove and hood, but never looked at the air ducts) were all unable to hold themselves accountable and make sure that the air ducts were cleared of grease. Because of their negligence in this important safety matter, two Boston firefighters paid the ultimate price.

The families of the firefighters sued all 3 parties and received $2.2 million in a settlement. However, the effects of this lawsuit go far beyond compensating the firefighters' families for their loss. Today, as a direct result of this tragedy and the litigation it spawned, tougher city regulations exist to assure that commercial kitchen cleaners pass a certification test and register with the fire department before they are allowed to work in city restaurants. This precaution should lead to more qualified, knowledgeable and responsible cleaning services.

The change in city ordinance resulting from this tragedy is a sobering reminder that the beneficial effects of lawsuits do not stop with those personally involved. As John Adams once said, "Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds." The families of firefighters of Warren J. Payne and Paul J. Cahill were fleeced out of a lifetime of memories with their beloved. By demanding justice through litigation, the families of these firefighters have caused an improvement in safety measures; hopefully these changes will prevent another tragedy like this occurring.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation understands the merit and long-lasting effects of proper and necessary litigation. By providing lawsuit funding, LFC helps those who seek to claim compensation due to the negligence of others who refuse to hold themselves accountable for meeting their responsibilities. This unique litigation funding company can assist you with a fire and explosion case like this one, or any other type of personal injury case. If you feel that Lawsuit Financial Corporation can help you in anyway, please contact us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

An important issue comes up in my office, now and again, and it is worth sharing with those who utilize, or may utilize, legal funding services. The issue is: Can one enter into a lawsuit financial contract with an incapacitated client?

Mentally incapacitated, minors, or wrongful death victims whose rights are being pursued by estate representatives can be funded, in some circumstances, but, both the lawsuit financing company and the attorney must be very careful. In a wrongful death action, for example, an attorney should advise a lawsuit funding company the names of the heirs and likely distributions. Is the recovery to go to one person or split among several? If split, what is the case's projected value and likely percentage splits? Case funding can only be provided against the share of proceeds that belong to the heir seeking funding; a legal finance company cannot fund one heir on the larger case value. If an inexperienced or uneducated litigation finance company attempts to do that, the attorney should point out and prevent the mistake, because the case will be difficult to resolve with a lopsided legal cash advance standing in the way. The legal finance company may be able to provide funding to several heirs, but only to each against each heir's potential share.

As to the minor or incapacitated plaintiff, lawsuit funding should not be provided in most instances. If a lawsuit finance company is willing to do such a transaction for a minor or incapacitated person the attorney should usually step in and stop it. A lawsuit funding company (or any vendor) must contract only with someone who has the requisite capacity. On the other hand, if a lawsuit cash advance is absolutely necessary for plaintiff's sustenance or medical treatment, the attorney might consider taking a proposed legal finance contract to the handling judge and get a transaction approved on a ‘best interests of the client’ basis, with the personal representative signing off on an agreement. This should only be done upon a showing of absolute need.

If the representative person is responsible for medical care or is receiving a portion of the proceeds for the recovery of money he/she has provided for medical care, household help, nursing services, etc., it is possible to provide lawsuit financial services to the representative against his/her own share of the recovery. There are no capacity issues there. The attorney must deal with the legal funding company in a fair and ethical manner. An attorney who directs funds to one plaintiff or another to avoid the legal finance company's lien could face a lawsuit or a bar complaint for ethical violations.

If you are presented with a situation where a client is seeking legal finance services under any of the scenarios presented herein, I advise caution. Call me at Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848), even if you are pursuing pre-settlement funding with a competitor. I am happy to provide practical advice and assistance to lawyers, their clients and, even to competitor litigation funding companies, so that clients receive the legal financial help they need in an ethical and sensible manner.

Farmington Hills, MI personal injury attorney, Arnold Reed, is a friend of mine and a fine lawyer. Recently, he filed a $20,000,000 lawsuit on behalf of the family of a man who, allegedly, was abused by Allen Park and Dearborn (suburban Detroit, MI cities) police.

But, this is not your average police misconduct/abuse case. I am writing about it, as a public service, to alert law enforcement officials and the public. The victim in this case was an insulin dependent diabetic who wore an insulin pump on his waistband (police,apparently, mistook this for a weapon) and who suffered from hypoglycemic episodes. He was, apparently, followed by the police for several miles and was pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. Police allege that he resisted them and they subdued him by wrestling him to the ground and spraying him with pepper spray and tear gas.

After he was subdued, officers noticed that what they thought was a weapon was, in fact, an insulin pump; they administered a breath test which showed no alcohol consumption. The victim was taken to a nearby hospital where his blood sugar level was found to be 20 (normal, according to the article, is between 70 an 110). Subsequently, after receiving treatment at several hospitals, he died, presumably from injuries relating to this incident.

This case is the aftermath of a tragic lack of awareness of a relatively common condition. Police officers need to exercise better judgment; they must ask questions of the people they apprehend before jumping to the conclusion that they are criminals, uncooperative subjects, or arrest resistors. Members of the public need to immediately advise an officer who pulls them over of any conditions that they might have that would cause them to behave in a way that makes them look or seem suspicious. Basic education, on both sides of an event like this, could have prevented this tragedy. If you are reading this and know a police officer, or a person whose condition could be misinterpreted by a police officer, share this blog and the attached article with them. Perhaps you and I, together, can prevent another tragedy like this one.

Lawsuit Financial provides legal finance services to injured and disabled people involved in pending lawsuits. Please, 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 police misconduct cases, auto accident cases, and all other personal injury litigation. Call Lawsuit Financial, or visit our website, today.

This video was sent to Lawsuit Financial by one of my Detroit legal colleagues, Joel Alpert. We all watch the news, scan the internet or read the papers about unemployment statistics. Sometimes we forget that behind those "statistics", there are real people with real jobs and real families to support. This video is a touching reminder of that sobering fact. Here's to our country factory workers; may you find better days ahead.

Lawsuit Financial is committed to providing legal funding services to injured people who are unable to work, involved in a personal injury lawsuit, and who may be considering settling their lawsuit for pennies on the dollar because they cannot afford to house or feed their families. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your legal and legal financial situation. Or, visit us on the world wide web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

The family of a child killed by a falling gate has settled their lawsuit against the municipality responsible for the tragedy. The settlement? $600,000, the maximum allowed by law.

Readers of this web log are well aware of my position on tort reform ("deform"). Here is a terrific and tragic example of the inequity that results when the legislature attempts to assist big business, big insurance and big government on the backs and wallets of the injured, disabled, and, in this case, the dead.

In this case, the city involved had previously admitted liability. It left and unsecured iron gate in a child-accessible area; the result? The gate fell on young eleven year old Tim DiLeo, crushing him to death in the late summer of 2007.

Methuen, MA (the municipality responsible for the accident) Mayor William Manzi, is quoted as saying that 'no amount of money can replace a child'. Mr. Mayor, you are absolutely correct. However, in our system of justice, we have, historically, required that a jury of our peers gets to decide what a child's life is worth. The framers of our judicial system knew that each life was precious, but each life was different; damages could vary dramatically depending upon the particular situation. What tort deform does is take these decisions away from the jury. Big business, big insurance, big government and your elected officials are saying to our peers, our jury pools, our citizens: "We don't trust your judgment. We trust you to elect our public servants and pay your taxes; we require you to volunteer for jury duty, but we are going to tell you what you can award because you are too stupid to decide things like this for yourself." Maybe they are correct. After all, you elected the legislators that keep taking away your precious rights in favor of big business, big insurance and big government. Shame on them; shame on you.

Lawsuit Financial is a pro-justice lawsuit funding company that provides strategic legal finance assistance to individuals involved in pending lawsuits. To find out if you qualify for a lawsuit cash advance, please contact Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com

Maritime injuries are injuries that occur at sea and are governed by "the law of the sea" or Maritime law. The main body of law that governs these injuries is a 1920 federal law known in legal circles, simply, as the Jones Act. The Jones Act has been amended countless times, since 1920, but it, essentially, seeks to provide protection to seamen who risk their lives at sea. It provides a remedy for maritime workers who sustain an injury while in service to a vessel on navigable waters as a result of employer or fellow crew-member negligence, or for the unseaworthiness of the vessel.

When a seaman is injured on the job, he may be entitled to recover certain benefits. Attached to this post is an article that reports a $1.8 Million verdict in Minnesota for an Escanaba, MI man who was seriously injured in a fall on a ship.

The injured man, Daniel L. Willis slipped and fell and injured his knee while performing his job on the vessel. He was treated at a nearby hospital and was then left to transport himself back to Escanaba on an 18-hour bus ride. Apparently, the long bus ride and the knee immobilizer combined to cause the development of a deep vein thrombosis that led to other complications.
The lawsuit alleged that his injuries were the result of “the unseaworthiness of the vessel and insufficient manpower, equipment, direction, supervision, maintenance, and other incidents of defendants’ malfeasance, negligence, and failure to provide a safe place to work.’’ As previously indicated, these are core allegations needed to pursue Maritime damages.

Willis was expertly represented by Wayzata, Minn., attorney Stephen Eckman, who also claimed that the defendants failed to attend appropriately to his client's medical needs. I congratulate Mr. Willis and Mr. Eckman on their hard-earned victory.

Lawsuit Financial provides Maritime legal finance services to people injured at sea and who have to pursue Maritime litigation to get the compensation they deserve. These cases can take a long time to resolve and families are often without wages or other compensation during that time. In this case, the accident happened in August 2004 and the verdict was announced in May 2009. Legal funding from Lawsuit Financial can provide a legal non-recourse cash advance for mortgage payments, rent, food, clothing, transportation, medicine or medical care while the injured plaintiff recovers from his injuries and pursues his lawsuit. With a lawsuit cash advance, there is no credit check and no credit hit; the only collateral necessary for litigation funding is a pending lawsuit.

If you or someone you love has been injured in any kind of accident, has hired an attorney and filed a lawsuit, and needs fast lawsuit cash call Lawsuit Financial, today, toll free, at 877-377-SUIT (7848) or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

It looks like another round of "tort reform" is about to be passed, this time, in Oklahoma. News wires report that Republican legislative leaders describe this "as a historic agreement that will help block frivolous lawsuits". I, and most quality attorneys, support reductions in "frivolous lawsuits". What disgusts me and most of my colleagues, is that "tort reform" is a big lie; it is almost never about "frivolous lawsuits"! It is, in the Oklahoma example and, in almost every other example I have seen, always about capping serious lawsuits.

Here is a question for you: Why would a "frivolous lawsuit", which by definition, is not serious and not worth much money (because, after all, it is 'frivolous'), need a cap, at all? Pro-business legislators, insurance companies and chambers of commerce use buzz words like 'tort reform', 'frivolous', and 'lawsuit abuse" to cover-up their real agenda which is: To enrich big business and big insurance on the backs of the one of the weakest segments of our society: the seriously injured and/or disabled. The only people standing in the way of this assault on civil justice in America are a few sensible legislators who know a wolf in sheep's clothing when they see one, you, the citizens, who can vote any bum who supports (or votes for) this type of anti-consumer legislation out of office, and the trial lawyers who work their individual and collective asses off to help achieve justice against a tidal wave of anti-trial lawyer rhetoric and hatred spun by the pro-insurance media machine.

Oklahoma citizens: Contact your state senator, state representative, and the governor and tell them that there is no need for another type of corporate bailout. Tell them that injured and disabled citizens need a bailout from this type of deceitful legislation. This law proposes to cap non-economic damages, also known as pain and suffering, at $400,000. I ask you: what "frivolous" case could possibly be worth that kind of money?! This is not about stopping the frivolous; it is about capping the serious. Don't let these people make a mockery of justice in Oklahoma.

For more information about how you can protect your rights, contact your state trial lawyers association, the Oklahoma Association for Justice, the national trial lawyers association, the American Association for Justice, or Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 877-377-SUIT.

I have spent considerable time at this location advising all U.S. citizens about the anti-justice legislative and judicial screwing Michigan citizens have received from their elected Republican representatives, their former Republican Governor (John Engler), and his judicial appointees. An excellent example of their anti-justice agenda is the current status of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. In its original form, the Act banned 29 deceptive business practices involving sales of goods and services and granted authority to the state's attorney general to sue to stop such conduct. However, since 1999, the Engler 'pro-business' appointees on the state Supreme Court have issued ruling after ruling denying justice to the average consumer, in favor of corporate interests and profits, contrary to the protections afforded in the Act.

One such example is currently being litigated in a Detroit area courtroom. In 2004, Paulette and James Day bought a GM certified and inspected used 2004 Chevrolet, for $20,350. It was "nearly new", right? Wrong! Later, the Day's were surprised to discover that the car was actually was two wrecks (the front of one and the rear of the other) that a dealer had welded together and sold to a broker, which then sold it to the dealer that sold it to the Day's. Are you following this?! They became suspicious when they found a spot of blue paint in the gas tank of their red Chevy. They tried to return the car for a refund and the dealer refused. The Day's hired a terrific consumer protection, lemon law, attorney, Dani Liblang, in Birmingham, MI, who had the car examined by an expert. The expert determined that the car was actually two damaged cars that had been pieced together, a process common enough that the auto industry even has a name for it: It is called "clipping". General Motors, supposedly, disapproves of this practice.

"No consumer would ever expect that two vehicles welded together make a GM-certified used car," says Liblang. She has a tough row to hoe in this lawsuit. As previously indicated, in 1999, the conservative majority of the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that as long as a business engaged in conduct that was specifically authorized by state law, it is exempt from the act, even if its conduct is deceptive. The court reaffirmed this principle in 2007, which effectively exempts any state or federally regulated business from non-compliance penalties. "If we had a strong Consumer Protection Act, this case would have been a slam dunk," Liblang said. Because of the current status of the Act, she must rely on other laws to make her case.

The opinions were written by current Michigan Supreme Court Justice Robert Young Jr., who is up for re-election next year. His opponent in next year's election has not yet been named, but I strongly urge all Michigan citizens to vote for his unnamed pro-justice opponent. Young has a long, ill-reputed record of anti-consumer, anti-justice, pro-business/corporate opinions .

Efforts to amend the decimated law have been blocked by powerful business interests led by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Another local attorney, Adam Taub, indicates that clients who seek his counsel in such matter are "shocked to discover that Michigan no longer has an effective Consumer Protection Act. ... It's Michigan's dirty little secret." Hopefully, with the attached article, this post, and others like it, it will not be a secret any longer. Hopefully, Michigan citizens will react, as they did last November, when they defeated incumbent Michigan Supreme Court Justice Clifford Taylor (the infamous "Sleeping Judge"). Hopefully, they will vote to defeat (anti) Justice Robert Young in next year's election and return some measure of sanity and justice to Michigan law.

Lawsuit Financial is committed to exposing all anti-justice myths involving our civil justice system. We advocate is a level playing field for the injured and disabled. Lawsuit Financial is please to provide legal cash advances to personal injury plaintiffs who are suffering physically and financially following an accidental injury.

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.

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.