Lawsuit Finance Blog

When we Americans think of the 4th of July, we think of fireworks, parades, barbecues, picnics, family gatherings, and more. It is a time to celebrate our independence – the ability to function in any given area without depending upon another’s help. It is the freedom from dependence. But this independence was stripped from two young people on July 4, 2007.

Kayla Smith decided to attend the annual fireworks in downtown Baton Rouge, LA with a friend because she had never been. Kayla Smith and Robert Blunschi, Jr. joined many on the levee steps, chanting “oohs and ahhs.” What happened next will affect Kayla, now 19, and Robert, now 24, for the rest of their lives. As they were getting ready to leave, bullets were fired. Kayla and Robert were in the wrong place and the wrong time. Mr. Blunschi was shot in the head and suffers brain damage; a bullet hit Ms. Smith in her right side, zigzagged five times and come out her left side. It hit her spleen and liver and poked three holes in her diaphragm. The first question she asked after being rushed to the hospital for surgery was, “Why take innocent people and take away part of their life for not reason?”

Kayla’s independence is stripped; her dreams shattered. Kayla was entering her senior year of high school and planning for college. She took dance lessons, played sports, and was a cheerleader. Now she is paralyzed from pelvis to toe and confined to a wheelchair. She has been through numerous surgeries. Most of her organs have healed, with the exception of her spinal cord and spleen, which doctors had to remove. Kayla struggles every day with pain in her legs. It is hard to get up in the morning because of the medication she needs for the pain. She can’t go to the bathroom on her own. The simple things in life are a challenge. In lieu of all this young lady has been through, she perseveres. She is attending Baton Rouge Community College studying art.

“After the accident, I realized God gave me my fingers and I figured I might as well do something with them,” Smith said, explaining her renewed passion for various types of are. “I want to get my degree in studio art.” What an amazing attitude for this young lady who has been through so much. Now she is considering a stem cell treatment to help with movement, but there are risks and no guarantee. Kayla is willing to take the risks in hopes that it will at least reduce the pain and help her with bladder control. Kayla’s parents are trying to raise money for the procedure, which could reach $20,000.

A fund has been set up through the National Transplant Assistance Fund and Catastrophic Injury Program where people can make tax-deductible donations.

Two-and-a-half years later and the police still have not found the person that shot Kayla Smith and Robert Blunschi. Cases like this can go unanswered forever. Justice is not served. The family may face long-term financial hardships as a result of life-long medical treatment and care. Others may take years, but evidence can surface; witnesses do come forward. Lawsuit Financial hopes this is the case for Kayla and she receives restitution. Additionally, we wish for a successful stem cell transplant that will give her at minimal, pain relief.

When we Americans think of the 4th of July, we think of fireworks, parades, barbecues, picnics, family gatherings, and more. It is a time to celebrate our independence – the ability to function in any given area without depending upon another’s help. It is the freedom from dependence. But this independence was stripped from two young people on July 4, 2007.

Kayla Smith decided to attend the annual fireworks in downtown Baton Rouge, LA with a friend because she had never been. Kayla Smith and Robert Blunschi, Jr. joined many on the levee steps, chanting “oohs and ahhs.” What happened next will affect Kayla, now 19, and Robert, now 24, for the rest of their lives. As they were getting ready to leave, bullets were fired. Kayla and Robert were in the wrong place and the wrong time. Mr. Blunschi was shot in the head and suffers brain damage; a bullet hit Ms. Smith in her right side, zigzagged five times and come out her left side. It hit her spleen and liver and poked three holes in her diaphragm. The first question she asked after being rushed to the hospital for surgery was, “Why take innocent people and take away part of their life for not reason?”

Kayla’s independence is stripped; her dreams shattered. Kayla was entering her senior year of high school and planning for college. She took dance lessons, played sports, and was a cheerleader. Now she is paralyzed from pelvis to toe and confined to a wheelchair. She has been through numerous surgeries. Most of her organs have healed, with the exception of her spinal cord and spleen, which doctors had to remove. Kayla struggles every day with pain in her legs. It is hard to get up in the morning because of the medication she needs for the pain. She can’t go to the bathroom on her own. The simple things in life are a challenge. In lieu of all this young lady has been through, she perseveres. She is attending Baton Rouge Community College studying art.

“After the accident, I realized God gave me my fingers and I figured I might as well do something with them,” Smith said, explaining her renewed passion for various types of are. “I want to get my degree in studio art.” What an amazing attitude for this young lady who has been through so much. Now she is considering a stem cell treatment to help with movement, but there are risks and no guarantee. Kayla is willing to take the risks in hopes that it will at least reduce the pain and help her with bladder control. Kayla’s parents are trying to raise money for the procedure, which could reach $20,000.

A fund has been set up through the National Transplant Assistance Fund and Catastrophic Injury Program where people can make tax-deductible donations.

Two-and-a-half years later and the police still have not found the person that shot Kayla Smith and Robert Blunschi. Cases like this can go unanswered forever. Justice is not served. The family may face long-term financial hardships as a result of life-long medical treatment and care. Others may take years, but evidence can surface; witnesses do come forward. Lawsuit Financial hopes this is the case for Kayla and she receives justice. Additionally, we wish for a successful stem cell transplant that will give her at minimal, pain relief.

When merging from a feeder road onto a main highway, if you’re not paying attention or time it poorly, accidents can happen; that is exactly what happened in this two vehicle automobile accident that badly injured four people in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.

It was a pretty violent crash when a man tried to merge onto the Interstate highway from a feeder road. For some reason, yet to be determined, the car made an unexpected left turn and collided with another car. The other driver never knew what hit him. The merging vehicle landed in the median of the highway and his victim's came to a dead halt in the left hand lane of the highway. During the collision, a passenger in merging vehicle (likely not wearing a seat belt) was ejected on impact.

All drivers and passengers were taken to hospital for treatment. Investigating state troopers charged the merging driver with an unsafe lane deviation. While this might be some comfort to his victims, it won’t pay their medical bills or other accident related expenses. For that relief, they have to retain an attorney who specializes in automobile accident cases and file a personal injury lawsuit.

These accident victims must, typically, have serious injuries to pursue litigation in our current legal system. an experienced personal injury lawyer, specializing in auto accident cases can advise them whether they will stand have a good chance of pursuing a personal injury lawsuit. But what do they do if they are disabled, have no money coming in, and are a year or two away from a conclusion to their case? Insurance companies count on plaintiffs settling their cases early, for too little, because they lack the financial resources to hold out for a fair settlement. They delay and delay until the plaintiff is desperate; then, they offer miniscule compensation in the hope that a desperate plaintiff will bite. In the old days, that strategy had a good chance of being successful and insurance companies saved millions in benefits by utilizing it. But, today, there is a unique service called lawsuit funding; this service provides an accident victim the money he/she needs now, then waits for repayment out of the potential settlement or verdict. Their bills and expenses are paid and they can wait out the long litigation process for a fair resolution. And, best of all, litigation funding is considered to be non-recourse funding; the money is not paid back unless the case is resolved successfully. This is no risk legal finance!

Legal funding is a smart strategic tool. If you are in severe financial distress, you are hardly a positive influence on settlement negotiations. Litigants in this situation will often accept a low ball offer even though your attorney is telling you that your case is worth a whole bunch more. So, don’t settle for less then you deserve; a well timed lawsuit cash advance may help you avoid settling too early for too little. Don’t hand over valuable settlement dollars to the insurance company. Hang in there and get the money you deserve. Help is just a phone call or a mouse click away. And please, be careful out there.

This case makes me wonder about the wisdom of younger people having driver’s licenses; the youthful drivers involved in this chain reaction automobile accident case lacked the experience to know that they were required to slow down when passing a police car that was stopped on the highway, investigating another accident.

This accident a really a series of events that set off a chain reaction of several automobile accidents that ultimately injured three people. Thankfully, although the injuries the three received were considered relatively minor, there is the possibility that some injuries may give problems later when its least expected. For instance, whiplash can often cause severe pain and result in serious disc or brain damage later. This is one of the major reasons why it is important to consult with your physician and, also, wise to speak to a personal injury attorney about any automobile accident. Don’t sign away your rights until you are certain of the residuals of your injuries. You may be suffering from something that could incapacitate you later.

This particular automobile accident took place in Missouri. It involved a State trooper, who was investigating another accident at the time; his cruiser was violently rear-ended causing a chain-reaction crash and injuring three. The trooper was checking out the damages to a 1999 VW, when a 2001 Honda slammed into his cruiser. The VW driver was in the cruiser at the time of the accident and witnessed a 19-year old driver lose control of his car. The Honda hit the police cruiser so hard that it knocked it into the VW. The Honda then continued south bound in the north bound lanes of the road, veered to the east; hit a gas line and a telephone pole before coming to a halt. Emergency medical crews took all three drivers to the hospital where they were treated and released.

The investigation isn’t complete yet, and, of course, there are questions: Was the Honda driver paying attention to where he was going or was he busy texting while driving? Was he under the influence of a drug or alcohol? Was he recklessly speeding, in a hurry to get somewhere and not obeying the rules of the road? In any event, the people he injured in this case are likely to retain legal counsel and pursue personal injury cases in court. For example, the VW driver in the police cruiser, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, should be able to recover damages for his injuries.

No matter who chooses to file an automobile accident lawsuit in this case, they should be aware that they have some options open to them to resolve financial issues even before they obtain a settlement in their cases. In other words, they have the option to seek a service known as "lawsuit funding".

It doesn’t take long to get lawsuit funding from an experienced provider of this valuable service, and it has been known to save the day in cases where people desperately need money now, to carry on with their daily lives. Just because auto accidents happen doesn’t mean that bills stop arriving; further, medical expenses must be handled, as well. A lawsuit cash advance will let the plaintiff(s) settle their bills now, handle their incoming and future bills, and allow them the precious time they need to wait for a fair and equitable conclusion to their litigation. The process takes as little as 24-48 hours and begins with a simple phone call or mouse click.

Boating accidents can be deadly, and in this one, the Coast Guard was sued for negligence and the wrongful death of an eight year old. This death took place in San Diego in December, 2009, prompting the parents to file a wrongful death and negligence lawsuit in January 2010 for the death of their son. There were thirteen people representing three families on board a 24-foot Sea Ray when they were broadsided by a much larger Coast Guard cruiser (33 foot). It was supposedly speeding when it hit the other boat.

Although the young boy was alive when he was subsequently pulled from the water, and hung on until he reached the hospital, he was pronounced dead about an hour after he was admitted. The cause of his death was listed as blunt force trauma.

The lawsuit alleges the Coast Guard administration knew the boat’s crew was less than adequately trained and supervised. This was known due to prior incidents involving this boat and crew. Eyewitness reports indicated that the Coast Guard boat was not in the midst of a rescue mission when they crashed into the smaller boat in the bay area. Instead, reports indicate that it was just messing around in the water cluttered with kayaks and other boats getting lined up for the parade. Evidently, the investigation into this incident revealed that the Coast Guard ship was estimated to have been traveling between 35 to 46 mph when the fatal collision took place. This is one of the crucial factors that will play a part in the outcome of the case.

The parents of this youngster are facing a very difficult and trying time ahead of them. They need to still be able to handle their day-to-day events and keep on paying their bills as they come in. It isn’t an easy time for them and they will be distracted and worried about where the money will come from to pay for their expenses. In cases such as this, the parents may want to check out the possibilities of accessing litigation funding, so they will be able to pay their financial obligations while awaiting a just outcome in the litigation. A lawsuit cash advance would likely be a welcome island of hope; something that the family can count on until they either reach a settlement or a verdict is handed down. Lawsuit funding is not hard to arrange, and may often be available within 48 hours.

While Utah is famous for its snow during the winter, it has been known to cause bad accidents. However, one has to wonder if there is more at play in this recent accident than just bad weather. All things being equal, there could have been alcohol and/or drugs involved, poor maintenance of one of the vehicles, reckless driving or using a cell phone while driving in a storm. Stranger things have happened, like the truck driver who struck and killed a woman while driving as a was watching a porn movie on his laptop.

In this case, five people were badly injured as the result of a head-on collision; it was a domino effect chain reaction that saw three different vehicles wind up in a twisted mass on the highway just outside of Salt Lake City. There were three men in a pickup truck; the indicated that the driver wanted to make a left hand turn off the highway. Apparently he either wasn’t looking where he was going, or was distracted; as a result, he collided with an oncoming car. To add insult to injury, seconds later, another vehicle rear ended the vehicle that was initially hit by the truck.

The police mentioned poor visibility in their report; poor visibility also prevented the MediVac helicopter from transporting the victims to medical care. They were taken by ground to the nearest hospital. The four casualties were listed in serious to critical condition; a fifth victim only suffered minor injuries and was released by the hospital.

On the surface, this accident may have been caused by bad weather, but the whole accident scene needs to be investigated to assure that this was the case. If there was alcohol, drugs, faulty tires, a cracked drive shaft or excessive speed for the prevailing conditions, this case will take a much different turn. Either way, the woman who was hit and injured by the pickup truck is entitled to file a personal injury lawsuit.

Given the nature of this type of accident and the fact that there are multiple vehicles and victims, this will be a difficult case to pursue in our legal system. It will, likely, take months, even years, to resolve. The injured woman (and any other victim who chose to sue) would have to try and pay for all her medical expenses, certain lost wages or a potential loss in pay, possible loss of her job if she is temporarily or totally disabled. She will also have to deal with the cost of any and all prescriptions, a replacement vehicle, her mortgage or rent; the list goes on and on.

While money does not grow on trees, lawsuit funding is a service that may be accessed very quickly in situations like this one. Legal finance advice can be obtained with one phone call; your questions will be answered promptly and professionally by an industry leader. Approvals can be arranged in as little as 24-48 hours.

A "lawsuit loan", as some like to call this valuable service, works to provide you the money you need now so that you can wait out the long litigation process for the settlement you deserve later. Pay your debts instead of drowning in them waiting for case resolution; a professional legal funding professional will wait to be paid out of case proceeds when a settlement or verdict in received. And, if you lose the case, you keep the lawsuit cash advance without obligation to repay. This is, indeed, no-risk lawsuit financing.

Some lawsuits are difficult; surprisingly enough, it isn’t always clear who should be sued. Faced with a situation like that, most lawyers will sue everyone involved; there is a good reason for that strategy, if they don't sue everyone, those who were sued will blame those who weren't, pokes holes in plaintiff’s arguments and the case could be severely damaged or lost.

Consider this car accident in which a young girl is badly injured. She and her significant other were on the highway in snowy conditions. They came across a car stopped in the middle of the road; it should have been off on the shoulder, but it wasn't. Traffic began to stop behind the couple. A few seconds later an 18-wheeler rear ended the last car, crushing it into the first car. The young girl will never be able to work again. No fault insurance is depleted in this serious automobile accident lawsuit.

Should all of the drivers in this case be sued? The trucker was driving without due care and attention; the first car’s driver abandoned a car in the middle of the road and created a hazard; the boyfriend could have pulled his car on to the shoulder. Of course, they are be sued because to not include someone would shift the blame to an “empty chair” in the court room.

This is the type of multiple party, multiple cause lawsuit will, invariably, take a long time to wind its way through the courts or to even come to some kind of a fair settlement. The more parties there are in lawsuits, the more time is needed to prove the extent of each one's negligence and/or apportion culpability. Meanwhile, a once vibrant, young lady can no longer work; she is barely making ends meet. She struggles to pay her bills. Her whole life was ripped apart in the blink of an eye. She has no other income and her family lacks the means to provide assistance. She faces a mountain of medical bills and is totally disabled.

This is a prime situation for litigation funding; a "lawsuit loan" will remove or eliminate financial pressure to settle too early for too little and permit her to wait for a fair and equitable settlement or verdict. If she is forced to settle her lawsuit early because of financial pressure, she will sacrifice a significant sum of money, sorely needed money that she will need to survive in the future, without the ability to work. She is already in financial straights; she is just managing to keep things together; her funds are running out quickly. Lawsuit funding is often available after one phone call. One call to 1-877-377-SUIT may provide the solution. Legal finance services often provide a quick, prompt answer to a plaintiff’s prayers. Lawsuit funding from Lawsuit Financial will often allow a seriously injured plaintiff to hold on financially until a settlement is reached or a verdict is rendered.

In an early February 2010 decision that startled many and overjoyed others, the Illinois Supreme Court slapped down that state’s version of medical malpractice “tort reform”; the law that imposed caps on damages to medical malpractice victims. The law was first passed in 2005, and Illinois personal injury victims and their attorneys have been battling against these unfair laws even since. The original cap was set as $500,000 for pain and suffering and other non-economic damages in any suit against a physician and $1 million for any claims filed against a hospital.

The key reason that the high court determined the law to be unconstitutional was that it violated the Separation of Powers clause of the Illinois Constitution. In essence, the legislature was trying to substitute its judgment for that of judges and/or juries. Since the constitution guarantees independent branches of government, (executive, legislative and judicial), tort reform like this allows the legislative branch to trample on the domain of the judicial branch, a clearly unconstitutional endeavor. This decision has really ticked off insurance companies; they are grumbling that it will increase the cost cost of medical malpractice insurance and drive doctors out of the State to other locations where caps are still in effect.

In reality, this decision was a victory for justice; victims of medical malpractice plaintiffs now stand a fair and equitable chance of a full and fair hearing on their injuries and disabilities and a just recovery in a medical malpractice lawsuit. And, the reality is that damage caps don’t solve a single thing when it comes to medical liability. Instead, caps leave people that desperately need to be compensated for severe, life-long injuries without enough money to survive. Caps shift the burden from the private insurance carrier, hospital and/or doctor, where it belongs, to the victim, and, when a capped award runs out, to the public in increased taxes.

This brave and refreshing decision of the Illinois Supreme Court won’t end the national debate about tort reform, but it strikes a blow to the advocates of shifting the cost of medical malpractice from insurance companies to innocent victims and, ultimately, to the public. Lawsuit Financial, the pro-justice lawsuit funding company, thinks that is a good thing; what do you think?

Congratulations to Anne Mitchel, the Texas nurse who was charged with "misuse of official information" after she wrote a confidential letter to the Texas Medical Board complaining about a doctor’s unsafe medical practices. Today, on the fourth day of her trial in Andrew, Texas, the jury found the veteran nurse "not guilty"

As reported here yesterday, there has been outrage in the legal community that Mitchell was charged with “misuse of official information,” a third-degree felony in Texas under an abuse-of-power statute.

Mitchell and fellow nurse Vicki Galle, (prosecutors dropped the charges against Galle), have responded with a civil lawsuit against the county, hospital, sheriff, doctor and prosecutor, accusing them of vindictive prosecution and denial of the nurses' First Amendment rights. If convicted, this would clearly have had a chilling effect on a nurses ability to report physician misconduct and keep patients safe. This a victory for justice in America.

According to the Texas Occupations Code,

"a nurse may report a licensed health care practitioner, agency , or facility that the nurse has reasonable cause to believe has exposed a patient to substantial risk of harm as a result of failing to provide patient care."

Lawsuit Financial, the pro-justice lawsuit funding company, applauds the Texas jury for its brave verdict in the face of what must have been substantial political pressure.

Anne Mitchell was a nurse at the Winkler County Memorial Hospital. Considering her professional credentials and ethical obligations, she saw a wrong and tried to right it. She saw a doctor at her hospital who, she felt, was performing sub-standard surgeries and improperly prescribing medication. She wasn't naive; the Texas medical community is a close-knit group and she knew that her complaint to the Texas Medical Board would have repercussions. Because of this, she complained to the Board anonymously.

But, she didn't count on the not-so-professional relationship between the county sheriff and the doctor in question. When the doctor, Rolando G. Arafiles, Jr. got wind of the complaint, he sought the assistance of his old friend, the sheriff. The sheriff investigated; he contacted patients listed in the anonymous letter of complaint, searched for clues of the letter origin, determined suspects, obtained search warrants for the top candidates in his "investigation", and found the letter of complaint on Mitchell's computer. And, all of this was done at taxpayer expense.

As a result of this "investigation", Mitchell and a second nurse (Vickilyn Galle) who assisted her, were fired; to add insult to injury, prosecutors filed felony charges ("misuse of official information") against them and a trial is ongoing. Mitchell, a longtime hospital employee, faces the possibility of 10 years in prison, if convicted. The complaint against Galle was dismissed at the discretion of the prosecutor.

This was not an isolated complaint; this doctor had a history of substandard performance. He performed a failed skin graft in the emergency room without surgical privileges. He also sutured a rubber finger tip to a patient’s crushed finger “for protection”; this surgery was cited as 'inappropriate' by the Texas Department of State Health Services.

Several nurse associations have raised $40,000 for Mitchell's defense and have called her prosecution an "outrage". The medical community has been silent on the issue. Mitchell and Gille have filed a federal, civil, lawsuit seeking protection under whistle-blower statutes.

Lawsuit Financial's opinion? "Lawsuit Abuse" and "Tort Refom" have been the buzz words in the debate to limit a patient's right to recover when a physician commits an error that causes serious injury or death to that patient. By using terms like "frivolous", the anti-justice forces seek to limit recoveries in serious cases. This effort to deny patients their fundamental right to pursue litigation has been led by the medical and business community and by giant, multi-billion dollar insurance companies. This prosecution is an extension of that same effort. As the attached article says:

This case also is bound to have a chilling effect on the willingness of nurses to report doctors believed to be endangering patients. That is not good news.

"Delay, deny, confuse and refuse" have been the buzz words for insurance company behavior in litigation, by the American Association for Justice, a pro-citizen lawyers group. This case is an example of similar conduct; it is designed to make a whistleblower think twice before regarding negligent or dangerous conduct to authorities. The dangerous doctor continues his negligent conduct with impunity and the nurse who, in good faith, reported him is punished. Go figure. To my knowledge, Dr. Arafiles has yet not been investigated as the result of Mitchell's complaint. His past performance is, absolutely, a key issue to whether the complaint was filed in good faith or whether it was a "vendetta" as the prosecution alleges. This is a case of putting the cart before the horse; this prosecution is a blow to safety in the operating room and in the doctor's office. The easiest way to reduce the incidents of medical neglect or mistake is to prevent them before they happen. The unrestrained ability of a health care professional to report persistent neglect is a vital tool to prevent medical mistakes. Texas citizens should be outraged.

Lawsuit Financial is a pro-justice lawsuit funding company that provides cash flow solutions and necessities of life litigation funding to plaintiffs involved a pending medical malpractice lawsuit or other types of personal injury litigation. A desperate plaintiff is not a positive influence on settlement negotiations. If you or a loved one is involved in a lawsuit and concerned with meeting your financial obligations, contact Lawsuit Financial toll free at 877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com for a free consultation.

Have you ever talked on your cell phone while driving? Eaten food? Read the newspaper? Read directions or a map? Blared your radio or iPod? Texted a friend or business associate? Carried on a conversation passengers? Shaved? Put on make-up? Combed your hair? Bent down to pick something up off the floor? Lit a cigarette? Ridden with a pet on your lap? O.K., perhaps we are over-killing this; you get the idea.

Driver distractions are nothing new, but auto accidents from driver distractions are on the rise. Every time we get into a motor vehicle and put it into motion, we begin to put ourselves at risk. Do we ever stop to think that the greatest danger to our safety may be ourselves? A split-second diversion of our attention can prove disastrous! Unfortunately, there is a high probability that driving distractions will continue to increase.

We recently posted an entry about the MyFord Touch; this technology equips vehicles with a high-tech dashboard for multimedia navigation and Internet capabilities. Add to that a TV, DVD player, navigation system, and other innovations, and our roadways are transformed into potential techno tragedy. Vehicles are becoming rolling offices and entertainment centers at the risk of our lives and those of others on our roads.

Driving requires full attention. Distractions are everywhere; it is the drivers’ responsibility to avoid them. Distractions, such as cell phones, have become so popular that many times we don’t realize when, where, and how often we are using these devices. They become a force of habit. Look around you the next time you are on the road (not for too long, this, too, is a distraction); it is easier to count those NOT talking on a cell phone than those who are.

Another dangerous distraction is eating while driving. Think of the steps you must take after leaving the drive-through window of your favorite fast food establishment. You take the food out of the bag, unwrap it, take several bites, put the wrapper in the empty bag; all of this activity and you haven’t touched the fries or drink yet!

And, what about the children or pets? Are you being driven to distraction with the kids fighting, crying, or talking loudly? Is the dog barking, roaming the car, or sitting on your lap? As our daily lives become busier and busier, many of us feel the need to accomplish something every moment of every day. Driving distractions reduce your awareness of the environment around you and has a negative effect on your driving performance. The next time you have the urge to "make the most" of your driving time, remember you control a vehicle that weighs more than one ton. It has the capacity to cause serious injury or death. Focus on the road, pay attention, and expect the unexpected. Keep your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel, and just drive.

Lawsuit Financial is a strong advocate of safe driving; we will continue to comment on the risks of distracted driving. Our goal is to encourage readers to stop talking on cell phones, stop texting, and/or stop engaging in additional activities that cause you to take your eyes off the road or your hands off the wheel. We hope that our readers will educate others to do the same. If you must use these techno devices, pull off the road. The few minutes could save a life, including your own.

Lawsuit Financial is one of the leading auto accident lawsuit funding companies in the country. We provide legal funding to personal injury victims who may be struggling financially while waiting for a lawsuit settlement. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in an auto accident that was not your fault, and you are experiencing financial problems as a result, Lawsuit Financial may be able to help you. We will evaluate your case and if you qualify, provide lawsuit funding within 24 – 48 hours. So don’t jump to a quick settlement just to pay your bills. Call us at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848). The call is free; the advice is priceless.

Christine woke up prepared for a productive morning of business meetings and networking. She was the second to arrive at the local restaurant hosting the event, obtaining the first parking space. Less than five feet and she is at the door. But in that short distance, Christine found herself subject to a slip and fall accident. You see, the restaurant owner did not salt the parking lot and that five feet patch between her car and the restaurant door was covered in black ice. The interesting part of this situation is that is was not snowing, nor was it raining; no precipitation of any kind had fallen in days. A gentleman, attending the same event, came out and assisted Christine to stand and enter the building. An employee watched them enter, she made no comment or apology. It was recommended that she have someone salt their parking lot before the rest of the group arrived. Christine found herself in more pain as time progressed, but assumed with a little rest, she would be fine. If you have ever been in a slip and fall accident, you may know that, many times, the pain worsens before it improves. Christine is realizing that now.

Slip and fall accidents are quite common and a leading cause of customer injuries. The risks of outdoor injuries increase in the winter months. Slip and fall accidents frequently cause significant injuries - broken bones, fractures, back injuries, disk herniations, head injuries; the more serious injuries require medical attention, and long-term treatment. Some falls result in catastrophic injury, even death. The physical affects of the injury are only half the battle. How will your injury affect your daily life? What if you could not work or otherwise take care of your family?

Business owners have a responsibility to keep their premises, parking lot included, safe, free from debris, ice or other hazard. They have a duty to reasonably inspect the property for unsafe conditions, inside and out, and are required to either fix/repair the problem or give adequate warning/notice of the condition that may pose a risk of harm. Property owner common sense would avoid a situation like Christine’s.

Slip and fall accidents should never be taken lightly. They can have a major impact on a person for months, even years. Christine is suffering severe back pain. She may be fine in a few days, but she may need ongoing physical therapy. At this time, she really doesn’t know the full extent of her injuries. Failure to purchase or sprinkle some salt could change her life forever.

It seems clear that the restaurant owner, in Christine’s case, was negligent. This accident (most accidents) could have been prevented. If you or a loved one has suffered a slip and fall accident, it is important to contact an attorney to review your case. You may be able to pursue compensation for injuries, pain and suffering, loss of wages, and medical expenses. But, these types of accidents are sometimes difficult to resolve. Business owners and their insurance companies provide much opposition and delay tactics. These obstacles can often be as much of a burden as the injuries you suffer; disability often causes you to fall behind on important bills and obligations. Lawsuit funding is a service that helps tackle the financial hardship that injury victims endure as the result of the negligent conduct of others. Lawsuit funding is, typically provided contingent on the outcome of your case and is based only on your case. Your credit score, job status, delinquencies, etc. do not matter to the litigation funding provider. Lawsuit funding companies are looking only at the potential quality of your case and they please to assist you with you financial problems while your lawyer helps guide you through the long, difficult legal process. Lawsuit Financial is an example of an exemplary lawsuit funding company that can provide needed financial assistance in the form of slip and fall lawsuit funding, permitting you to meet your day-to-day financial obligations, while awaiting case resolution. We provide funding based on the merits of your case and in consultation with your attorney. If you win your case, you repay our principal and profit; if you lose your case, you owe us nothing. This is called non-recourse legal funding. If you are hurting, both physically and financially, the combination of a solid, professional lawsuit funding company and an experienced attorney (we will help you find one, if you need us to) you are a combination that the insurance companies will find hard to beat. For further information, please call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit our website.

This summer, Ford is rolling out its MyFord Touch, a high-tech dashboard for multimedia, navigation, and Internet capabilities. Two features of the MyFord Touch system is the ability to make your car into a WiFi hotspot and HD radio with iTunes tagging support. The design replicates a traditional dashboard; everything is interconnected. Information is displayed on a pair of 4.2” full-color LCD screens on either side of an analog speedometer with five-way navigation buttons on either side of the steering wheel. This makes it easier to navigate different options. An 8” touch screen LCD at the top of the center console is the centerpiece of phone, navigation, climate, and audio/entertainment features.

Much of MyFord Touch is voice activated; this, in theory, would prevent the need to look down or to the driver's right, while driving. However, touch screens require a certain amount of concentration on the part of the user. In a moving vehicle, any diversion can quickly become a safety hazard. The smart design would certainly eliminate the need for the driver to take their hands off the steering wheel. But, what about keeping the driver's eyes on the road? Isn't this of equal or greater importance?

Ford says the system will respond, almost entirely, to verbal commands. The driver will talk to his/her Ford vehicle dashboard, and it will make calls, play songs, etc. The driver can hear stocks, emails, tweets, and texts. While we are certain that these verbal commands are intended to make drivers safer, they still result in distracted driving. The natural instinct to push buttons is firmly entrenched in many drivers who use cell phones texting devices, internet tools and other distracting technological devices

Is it time to embrace these technological advances or express concern about distracted driving? Watch this video and notice the number of buttons and screens. The video offers this disclaimer:

Driving while distracted can result in loss of vehicle control. Only use mobile phones and other device even with voice controls when it is safe to do so.

Doesn’t the quoted language imply that Ford realizes that MyFord Touch may create distracted driving? Should we be adding more controls and gadgets to our vehicles, or should we be doing more to control distractions?

Lawsuit Financial strongly encourages its readers to stop talking on cell phones, texting, and/or engaging in additional activities that cause you to take your eyes off the road or yor hands off the steering wheel. Mobile phone, iPod, IPhone, and/or Blackberry useage, texting or internet devices used while driving are simply not safe. If you must use one of these devices during a trip, pull of the road for a few minutes; this simple act, though somewhat time consuming, may add precious minutes to your lifespan.

Lawsuit Financial is one of the country’s most experienced auto accident lawsuit funding companies. Our pro-justice legal finance professional staff has seen a strong upsurge in pre-settlement funding requests resulting from accidents caused by driver distractions We provide legal funding so a personal injury victim does not become financially desperate while waiting for a lawsuit to settle; after all, a financially desperate plaintiff is not a positive influence on settlement negotiations. If you or someone you love has been seriously injured in an auto accident that was not your fault; if you are experiencing financial difficulties as a result, auto accident lawsuit funding is available to assist you. Lawsuit Financial will evaluate your case for free and, if the case qualifies, provide lawsuit funding within 24 – 48 hours. Don’t jump to a quick settlement just to pay your bills. Contact us – your legal funding experts. Call 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) today. The call is free; the advice is priceless.

When you are shopping this holiday season, it is quite possible to find yourself the victim of a slip and fall accident. Whether you are in the grocery store or the toy store, it is not uncommon to encounter a squashed grape or a broken toy parked in the middle of an aisle. The problem, obviously, is that you are looking on the shelves, like you are supposed to, to select the items the store would like you to purchase. You are not looking at the floor, because you are specifically being directed not to do so. It is also not uncommon to laugh at someone who has fallen; watching someone stumble and fall looks funny, sometimes. However, the consequences of a serious fall are no laughing matter. These accidental falls can cause serious injury, even death.

Did you know that there was an organization called the National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI)? This is an organization that promotes education about and prevention of slip and fall accidents. According to the NFSI, more than 2.2 million Americans seek emergency room treatment each year for some type of accidental fall. If these statistics are true (Lawsuit Financial has no reason to doubt them), this would mean that falls are the leading cause of emergency room visits in this country. Every 8 seconds, someone is injured from a slip and fall; more than 21,000 people will die, each year, from common slip and fall accidents. The NFSI estimates the annual cost of falls to be as much as $80 billion.

The law, in most states, recognizes that stores, stadiums, theaters, restaurants, and other commercial establishments must be responsible to prevent the visiting public from injury in slip and fall accidents. Safety should be of paramount concern to these establishments. Those responsible for these premises, should frequently inspect public areas and keep them clear of debris, liquid, protrusions, or anything that could cause a patron to fall. Lighting should be adequate and employees should be properly trained to maintain the premises. Building codes should be strictly complied with and, if under construction, appropriate safety measures should be implemented and taught to all workers. All business owners should insist on maximum cooperation from their employees, at all times, to assure the safety of their customers.

From a liability standpoint, proving negligence in a slip and fall accident is, sometimes, more difficult than it might otherwise seem. What standards or codes, if any, were violated? How long was the defect or substance present on the floor? Was the business or store on notice of the defect or substance? Was the consumer in any way responsible? Determining negligence in slip and fall accidents requires legal expertise. If you have been involved in a slip and fall accident, what does Lawsuit Financial recommend? Consult with an attorney who specializes in these types of accidental injury cases. If you don't know a lawyer or need help locating a specialist near you, the Lawsuit Financial Attorney Referral Program will locate one for you, free of charge, within 24 hours of your inquiry.

These types of accidents are not easily resolved. Business owners and their insurance companies provide vigorous opposition; a lawsuit is almost always required. Business owners and their insurance companies work the legal system to buy as much time as possible so that they can hold onto their money and delay paying it to you. That is where lawsuit funding comes in handy. If you become embroiled in contentious litigation with a business owner and an insurance company arising from your slip and fall accident and injury, Lawsuit Financial can provide slip and fall lawsuit funding. Don't settle your valuable case for pennies on the dollar; legal finance is available for rent, house payments, car payments, utilities, groceries, medical expenses, or any important bill or obligation. Legal funding is provided based on the merits of your case, through information provided by your attorney. Whether you have good or bad credit, whether or not you have a job, whether you own a home or not, none of this matters. All that Lawsuit Financial cares about is whether you have a pending lawsuit being handled by a competent lawyer. If you win the case, you will pay us our principal and profit; if you lose your case, our money is free; keep it with our compliments. Call us today, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) to discuss litigation funding for your slip and fall case or any other type of personal injury case. Or, visit our website. The call or the visit is free; the advice is priceless. Happy holidays to all.

Lawsuit Financial reminds its readers that it has increased its available capital to assist all lawsuit victims in enjoying the holidays. Legal finance services assist any and all individuals with qualifying personal injury cases, who find themselves embroiled in never-ending litigation. You have a battle on your hands and we are here to help you get through it. Litigation can often take months, even years to resolve; this makes it difficult, sometimes impossible, for victims to support themselves and meet simple, every day financial obligations.

To qualify for lawsuit financing, you need only a qualifying, pending, personal injury case; whether your credit is "bad" or "good" does not matter to Lawsuit Financial; we finance litigation victims based solely on the merits of their lawsuits. The lawsuit cash advance goes directly to the accident victim; use it to pay your monthly expenses: mortgage payments, rent, utilities, car payments, medical bills and other important obligations. There are no monthly payments to make; Lawsuit Financial will wait for payment at the successful conclusion of your case. And, if you lose your case, the lawsuit cash advance is excused and you do not have to pay us back!

Lawsuit Financial offers 24-48 hour service. We offer a simple process with very little red tape. If your attorney gets us the case information we need in a timely manner, you can be receive funds well in advance of the holidays; in many cases, we can even get you same day funding! Stop worrying about your finances and start focusing on your lawsuit and your potential victory.

Lawsuit Financial is one of the most experienced companies in the legal and legal funding industry. Our CEO has a combined 33 years experience assisting accident victims as an attorney and as a legal finance professional. He and our very experienced para-professional support staff have assisted thousands of injury victims with cash now to pay their bills, reduce the financial pressure to settle too early for too little, and hold out for full compensation in their personal injury litigation.

Lawsuit Financial offers auto accident lawsuit funding, slip & fall lawsuit funding, medical malpractice lawsuit funding, airplane crash lawsuit funding, dog bite lawsuit funding, and lawsuit funding for most other injury accident cases. We believe in full compensation and we will do whatever we can to help you achieve full justice for your litigation.

Our pro-justice lawsuit funding company offers its legal finance service all over the country; lawsuit finance services are available in most states, with the exception of workers compensation lawsuit funding, which is limited to certain qualifying states. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for further information or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. The call to 1-877-377-SUIT is free; the advice is priceless.

Two years ago, a Texas couple was in a head-on collision when a truck swerved, over-corrected, and collided with their vehicle. They survived the collision, though they endured a long, grueling recovery. Tragically, almost unbelievably, the couple’s family experienced an even worse set of circumstances on October 1, 2009. Gregory and Alexandra Bruehler were riding a tandem bicycle on Texas 16; a truck driven by Gilbert Sullaway lost control, veered off the road, over-corrected, and slammed into the couple from behind, dragging their bicycle 200 feet. Both were wearing bicycle helmets; they were not enough to protect them from death in this tragic accident. Alexandra was pronounced dead at the scene; Gregory was airlifted to the hospital where he later died. The couple is survived by their seven-year-old daughter, Kylie. Investigators said that Mr. Sullaway took his eyes off the road; the curve came much faster than anticipated. There was no evidence of alcohol or drug involvement.

What is unknown is why Sullaway was distracted. He was traveling 70 mph in a 65 mph zone – a violation of the law, yet, he did not receive a traffic violation. He, admittedly, drove on the shoulder of the road – another violation of the law; again, he received no citation. No criminal charges have been filed; authorities opined that for Sullaway to be subject to arrest, he would have had to intentionally strike the Bruehler’s or be under the influence. Under the current law, unless a driver is intoxicated or high, it is difficult to prove recklessness and negligence. Should the law be changed? Should drivers be fully responsible for their actions? And what of the Bruehler’s little girl, Kylie? Who speaks for her? Who protects her rights? She receives a life sentence without parents.

Kylie’s grandfathers filed a wrongful death lawsuit on November 9, 2009 on behalf of their granddaughter. In addition to Sullaway, the lawsuit was filed against his employer, Advanced Detection Security Services because Sullaway was on duty at the time the accident occurred. Gray Bruehler, Kylie’s grandfather, said they filed the lawsuit to ensure that Kylie has enough financial support to “at least get her through college.” The lawsuit seeks compensation for medical and funeral expenses, loss of companionship, mental anguish, and for the bicyclists “pre-death pain, suffering, and mental anguish.”

According to Bike Texas, a Texas Bicycle Coalition, approximately 50 cyclists, 400 pedestrians, and 500 motorcyclists are killed every year in Texas. Many of those fatalities could have been prevented under the Safe Passing Bill. Is the Bruehler’s case one more reason that Texas bicycle laws must change? Earlier this year, anti-justice, pro-insurance, Texas Governor, Rick Perry, vetoed a bill that would have allowed cyclists and other vulnerable road users a little more space on most highways. Might passage of this law have saved the Bruehler’s? Difficult to determine since we do not fully know the extent to which Sullaway’s distracted driving played a role in the tragedy; existing law required him to be responsible, careful and attentive on that day. Cyclists and pedestrians will, at one time or another, be in the roadway. Sometimes, they will be in our path of travel. It is imperative that all drivers be aware of their presence in and about the traveled portion of our highways, roads and bridges. Cyclists and pedestrian are much more vulnerable than vehicles. Bicycle helmets offer little proctection against 55-70 MPH cars and trucks.

Pedestrian or bicyclists injured in a collision with a motor vehicle are, almost always seriously or catastrophically injured. In litigation, an innocent pedestrian or bicyclist may recover damages for medical and funeral expenses, loss wages, loss of companionship, pain and suffering, loss of financial support, and mental anguish. A personal injury attorney who specializes in auto/truck bicycle accidents will guide you through the difficult legal process; if you do not have a lawyer, the Lawsuit Financial Attorney Referral Program will locate a specialist for you within 24 hours of your request.

Determining liability and obtaining case resolution are often long and complicated processes. The daily necessities of life continue; bills must be paid. You want to fight for your rights, but struggle to meet your daily financial obligations. Should you settle your case as quickly as possible for whatever you can get? That strategy guarantees that you will settle the case for less than its true value. Do yourself a favor: Discuss lawsuit funding with your attorney. Ask him whether a strategic lawsuit cash advance might enhance the value of your case. Legal finance services may be preferred to an early and cheap resolution of your valuable case.

Lawsuit Financial provides strategic pre-settlement funding to help plaintiffs pay important financial obligations while their case is pending in litigation. Losing a parent is devastating to a young child. Losing children is equally devastating; it is not the natural order of things, and we extend our heartfelt sympathies to Kylie and the entire Bruehler family. Wrongful death lawsuits are very contentious and often take years to resolve. Lawsuit Financial helps families through such difficult times; we are very sensitive to your needs. We offer free consultations to evaluate your case and financial needs. Contact us online or call 1-877-377-SUIT (784), toll free to speak with one of our lawsuit funding specialists.

"Three strikes and you’re fined"; this is the story of Rhode Island Hospital after three different brain surgeons operated on the wrong parts of the heads of three different patients. Rhode Island Hospital is the state's most prestigious medical center and a teaching hospital for the Ivy League's Brown University. All three mistakes happened in less than a year. A fourth case involved a surgeon who operated on the wrong side of a patient with a cleft palate. How does a surgeon miss a cleft palate?

On October 22, another wrong-site procedure took place when a patient was having elective surgery on two different fingers of the right hand. Remarkably, both procedures were performed not only on the same hand, but on the same finger. By now, you should be asking yourself "how could this happen"?

State Health Director David R. Gifford had this to say:

“This pattern of surgical errors is completely unacceptable and must be corrected to protect the safety of all patients at the hospital.”

Equally alarming is that the surgeons involved in these errors are (or were) highly regarded. The most well trained doctor who has done the same or similar procedure hundreds of times needs to follow protocol. Surgeons are required to follow a three-step process called the "Universal Protocol" to ensure they are about to do the correct operation, usually via a checklist. Obviously, protocol is loosely followed, if at all, at Rhode Island Hospital.

Fortunately, none of these wrong-site surgeries resulted in fatalities. The Hospital has been slapped with a $150,000 fine, required to install video cameras in all its operating rooms, and must assign a clinician, not part of the surgical team, to observe all surgeries at the hospital, for a period of not less than one year. The hospital will, apparently, use video of these procedures as a monitor and training tool.

Will these measures work? They might decrease mistakes and increase safety in the operating room, but given the hospital's recent track record, slapping the perpetrators with a fine and making them “promise” to follow safety protocol does not seem adequate to this observer.

The hospital must also conduct a mandatory training and review of the uniform surgical procedures with all surgical staff, and implement the safety checklist. Obviously, these critical safety procedures were not being used or were being misused. What happened to patient care and safety? How would you, as a juror in these victims' cases, handle these medical mistakes and victims' compensation? Would it anger you to find out that your verdict was thrown out in favor of a lower damage cap? Where is adequate punishment? Where is justice?

These questions lead me to the ultimate question I repeatedly ask in many of my posts: Why do congressional conservatives and the citizens who support these politicians seek to punish the victims of medical error rather than the perpetrators? Tort Reform, a fancy name for placing a damage cap on serious verdicts for serious injuries or fatalities at unreasonably low numbers, will do nothing to improve safety in the operating room. It will further encourage those responsible for committing medical errors to be less responsible. Why? Because there will be little or no consequence for mistakes made. Insurance companies will get a financial windfall and the public sector, in the form of increased taxes for assuming the burden of the wrongdoers, will take the financial hit. Is that what fiscal conservatives stand for? They do if their hands are in the pockets of insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies. While insurance companies receive a “get out of trouble” free card, the taxpayers get the bill. Is this what the American people want?

Rhode Island Hospital should be a wake-up call to all who favor placing damage caps and other anti-justice restrictions on patients and their loved ones as they seek to recover full and fair compensation for injuries and losses caused by negligent medical and hospital personnel. Hospitals and doctors must be held fully accountable for inadequate care. It is time we address the real problem–preventable medical errors. The easiest way to reduce the cost of medical malpractice is to prevent or reduce the incidents of medical errors; the system will not repair itself by punishing the victim a second time. Stop blaming the victims; hopefully the situation at Rhode Island Hospital has sent this loud and clear message to Congress as they continue to ponder changes in our health care system.

Lawsuit Financial is a pro-justice lawsuit funding company that provides cash flow solutions and litigation cost funding to plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit. If you or a loved one is involved in a lawsuit and concerned with meeting your financial obligations, contact Lawsuit Financial toll free at 877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com for a free consultation.

Yesterday, I read an interesting article in Salon, written by Dr. Dr. Rahul Parikh and it is worth the read.

Parikh, an M.D. Pediatrician, and a very brave man, states that restricting the legal rights of injured patients won’t lower costs or improve health care:

“There’s nothing “sure or quick” about changing medical liability laws that will improve health care or its costs. Defensive medicine adds very little to health care’s price tag, and rising malpractice premiums have had very little impact on access to care.”

One of the myths behind medical malpractice is its effect on overall health care costs. Medical malpractice is actually a very small percentage of health care costs, partially because medical malpractice claims are pursued at a considerably less frequent rate than most people are led to believe. According to the Congressional Budget Office, malpractice costs amount to less than 2% of overall health care spending. It also found no difference in health care spending between states with or without limits on malpractice lawsuits.

So-called tort "reformers" push that the fiction (and I do mean fiction) that "frivolous" lawsuits dominate the legal system; they say that these lawsuits are behind the surge in health care expenses. Yet, considering that attorneys are, almost universally, handling these cases on a contingency fee basis (the attorney receives no fee unless the case is successful), the system offers absolutely no incentive to pursue the "frivolous" case.

The reformists further argue that reform is the most effective way to slow down the rising costs of health care. In reality, medical negligence lawsuits contribute very little to health care costs, and a significant number of patients die annually from preventable medical errors. Doctors who commit malpractice should be accountable; injured patients should be compensated for their injuries, lost wages, and ongoing treatment costs. What is the value of serious disfigurement or loss of life from a medical or surgical procedure? The injured patient has already suffered enormously; his/her rights should not be negotiable. Additional barriers to justice or artificial damage caps on their recoveries simply make them victims a second time.

46 states have some form of tort reform, yet the burden of exorbitant health care costs still exists. If a lawsuit is truly frivolous, it is dismissed early and the attorney who brings it is sanctioned by the presiding judge. The case does not go to trial; it does not burden the system. And why, if frivolous litigation is the concern, does "tort reform" always take the form of demanding caps on damage recoveries? Why do the reformers need to cap the damages of a "frivolous case", which by definition is worthless? "Tort reform" argues for caps because corporate interests are lying to you; they want to limit recovery on serious cases, not stop frivolous one. This is the big lie of the so-called "tort reformers". If the case is legitimate, shouldn't it be heard by a judge or jury? Isn't this guaranteed by our constitution? Why does the legislature, state or federal, influenced by corporate interests, get to decide instead of a judge or jury? Is that really what you want for yourself or your family and friends?

The health care and tort system debate should be focusing on two things and two things only: 1. Delivering patient safety, and, 2. Delivering patient safety at an affordable price for all of our citizens. It should not be focused on limiting the rights of those who are injured, maimed or killed as the result of professional negligence. It stands to reason that there will be fewer injuries and fewer lawsuits if there are sufficient safety measures in place. It is time to fix the health care and safety problems rather than bargaining away the rights patients who are injured, maimed or killed by health care providers. What are these "tort reformers" doing to improve safety? What are they doing to improve quality care? What are they doing to save lives?

Lawsuit Financial encourages everyone to look at the 'fine print' on tort reform. Do you know how it will affect all of our rights? Tort reform means shifting costs to the taxpayers; yes, I mean you, the working taxpayer... If you think you pay high taxes now... Tort reform has nothing to do with reducing injuries and death; it has everything to do with increasing the profits of insurance companies, big pharmaceuticals and other corporate concerns.

Lawsuit Financial is a pro-justice lawsuit funding company that provides strategic legal finance to individuals in a pending lawsuit. If you are involved in a lawsuit and are concerned how you will meet your financial obligations while the lawsuit is pending, contact Lawsuit Financial toll free at 877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com for a free consultation.

I saw an article in the Connecticut Post today called “Health Care Bills Sidestep Medical Errors Issue.” The article points out that the current health care legislation being considered by Congress takes only "modest steps" to address medical neglect or medical error. The article correctly points out that this issue is more deadly that inadequate medical insurance.

In its August 2009 comprehensive report on the issue, entitled Dead by Mistake, Hearst concluded that approximately 200,000 Americans die, every year, from preventable medical mistakes and that tools to fight these needless deaths are not utilized at many hospitals.

As my readers know, many pro-business, anti-justice concerns would ignore doctors' errors and ignore doctors' own glaring admissions that they perform unnecessary tests. These concerns would rather take trial lawyers and victims to task, instead. Crying "lawsuit abuse" or "tort reform", they would rather limit our recovery rights in or our access to the courts rather than do anything to reduce the number of medical errors and the staggering human and financial cost that results from them. Tort law changes would only save 0.5% of all health care costs, and leave injured patients with practically no legal recourse. Reducing medical mistake and neglect would mean healthier patients and lower cost.

So, let's re-frame the debate. Let's all of us urge the medical profession to cooperate in a joint effort to clean up their act and reduce the frequency and cost of their mistakes. A good start would be for the medical profession to support the insertion of two major recommendations of the landmark federal study, "To Err is Human" (conducted 10 years ago) into the health care package of bills . This comprehensive study suggested that 1. mandatory reporting of medical errors and 2. systemic changes to prevent future mistakes based on those reports would significantly reduce the incidents of medical error. Without medical error reporting, the outlook for serious change is bleak. Tell the medical profession to stop blaming the victims; tell them to stop blaming the lawyers. To quote the old proverb: "Physician, heal thyself".

In the meantime, Lawsuit Financial will continue to speak out on matters of importance to injury victims. We will continue to provide lawsuit funding to victims of medical error, auto accidents, or other injury accidents. For further information, or to apply for an advance, please call 1-877-377-SUIT or visit www.lawsuitfinancial.com

8-year-old Jeremiah Newman was tragically killed in a head-on automobile accident, last Saturday, October 10, 2009. Jeremiah, a third grade elementary student from Jackson, Michigan, was a rear-seat passenger in a 1998 minivan being driven by his mother. His father, grandparents and brother were also passengers in the van. Unfortunately, Jeremiah was not wearing a seat belt. Apparently, the minivan, heading west on M-50 in Napoleon Township, MI crossed over unto the eastbound shoulder and was hit by an oncoming vehicle while attempting to get back into the westbound lane.

Barbara Dixon, of Napoleon Township, MI who was driving the oncoming eastbound vehicle, tried but failed to miss the van when it came back across. The van rolled over on impact and young Jeremiah was thrown from the vehicle. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Jeremiah's grandfather, Gerald R. Lafond, 50, was also injured and listed in serious condition. Other occupants, Jeremiah's grandmother, Carol Lafond, 58, father Robert Newman, 33 and brother Brandon Newman, 12 were either treated and released or considered in "good" condition. Ms. Dixon was also listed in "good" condition.

Obviously, this tragedy spotlights the need to remind all of us to "buckle up". An investigation of this accident is still pending and it is educated speculation that the lack of a seat belt contributed to Jeremiah's death. However, according to the "Seat Belt Statistics" page of James Madison University's Comprehensive Safety Plan, one out of every five drivers will be involved in a traffic crash this year, approximately 35,000 people die in motor vehicle crashes each year, and approximately 50% of those could be saved if they had been wearing their safety belts. The site also provides this alarming statistic:

"For every one percent increase in safety belt use, 172 lives and close to $100 million in annual injury and death costs could be saved."

Most of us are familiar with the statistic that the majority of accidents, deaths and injuries occur within 25 miles from home. Thus, the thought that "I'm only going a few miles" doesn't cut it when we consider whether or not to fasten our safety belts. Please, whoever is reading this post, fasten your safety belt, every time, whether traveling short or long distance. According to the James Madison site, motorists are 25 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured when thrown from the vehicle than when they remain inside the vehicle. Had Jeremiah's family been aware of this sobering statistic, things may have been different.

Lawsuit Financial encourages all drivers to fasten their safety belts. Drivers can also refuse to drive away until all passengers fasten their belts, as well. According to the James Madison site, 90% of people who are asked to buckle up, will do so, when asked. You may be the safest driver in America, but you never know who is coming around the next corner, curve, or over the next hill. I have previously written about how auto accidents can change lives or, in this case, take lives, in an instant. Please, don't be a statistic; fasten your safety belts, every time.

In a rather unique legal situation, a jury in Alachua County Florida has rendered a verdict apportioning negligence between several defendants. The unique part of the story is that the jury was not asked to consider damages. I speculate that the damage issues have been agreed upon; it is, in my humble opinion, only remotely possible that a separate trial will be required for the damage portion of the case.

The case involved a serious crash on 1-75 in Florida that caused the death of Steven Bogue and serious injuries to Claudette DeRossett, a passenger in Bogue's vehicle. Defendants, aside from Bogue (the jury assessed 15% responsibility to him), are the Alachua Police Department (which, according to the jury, was 35% responsible), the driver of the truck that Bogue ran into (found 15% responsible), and the driver of a commuter van (found 35% responsible) which collided with the second truck (a female passenger in the commuter van is pursuing litigation against the owner of the Bogue vehicle). The jury took less than two hours to apportion negligence in the case. Apparently, Bogue's negligence level was a hotly contested issue in the case; I presume that his counsel was very satisfied with the 15% finding because the finding would mean that his negligence was a minor causative factor.

The accident happened on October 12, 2007, almost 2 years ago. The Florida Highway Patrol had shut down parts of southbound 1-75 because of a previous fatal accident and traffic was being routed off the freeway by the Alachua County Police. Traffic was either stopped or slowed and being detoured when Bogue, heading south on 1-75, approached the scene and struck the slowed or stopped vehicles. DeRossett's attorney argued that Bogue neither stopped nor slowed, but other attorneys argued that other negligent factors existed, such as the officers handling of the detour, the decision to close the road and the actions of others involved in the accident. The vehicle that Bogue hit, for instance, had come to a complete stop, but did not employ emergency flashers.

What remains unresolved and unclear is how the jury's verdict will impact damages. Assuming damage issues are still in play against various defendants (there may have been a prior settlement, or a provisional settlement based on a speculative jury finding) I would presume, from the apportioned numbers, that viable litigation still exists for Steven Bogue's family members and for DeRossett (although, only 15% against Bogue).

This case is a classic candidate for lawsuit funding. The family of Steven Bogue lost its principal breadwinner and has been embroiled in litigation for almost two years. Liability issues are now resolved; how long will it take to resolve damages? In this wrongful death case, how is the life of Steven Bogue evaluated. In DeRossett's case, she suffered a traumatic brain injury; I presume that this has effected her ability to earn a living and has caused significant financial hardship.

In both cases, the family of Steven Bogue and Claudette DeRossett should be entitled to damages. It has been two years and liability has just been decided. How have they sustained themselves, financially? One way is to obtain lawsuit funding. Lawsuit Financial is a company that provides non-recourse litigation funding to victims of negligence. Auto Accident lawsuit funding and/or Wrongful Death lawsuit funding is available to assist victims similar to the Steven Bogue family and Claudette DeRossett, regardless of how long it takes for their cases to resolve. And Lawsuit Financial's legal funding is capped funding; after one year, the amount due will never increase and, if the case fails, the legal finance advance is completely excused. This is why these types of transactions are call non-recourse pre-settlement funding.

If you or someone you love has been the victim of a serious accident and you have hired an attorney and filed a personal injury lawsuit, you may be a candidate for lawsuit funding from Lawsuit Financial. If you have not yet hired an attorney, Lawsuit Financial will find you one, in all 50 states. Disability or death from an accident can cause serious financial distress. Insurance companies compound that distress by delaying settlement as long as possible. Lawsuit Financial is the legal finance industry expert; call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your legal and financial situation. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com

The recent tragic crash in Garden City, New York, where a wrong way driver caused the deaths of 8 people caused me to do a national "mini investigation" into wrong-way driving for the month of August (although I have included one for July 31). Here they are:

July 31, 2009, Dallas Texas: Wrong-way collision on I-20 in the westbound lanes along a divided highway near Polk Street in the Red Bird area. Alcohol consumption is a possible factor. Three people reported killed.

August 2009, Tuscon, AZ: Wrong-way crash on I-10 killed 17-year-old driver.

August 2009: Brownsville, Texas: On Highway 71, a southbound driver in the northbound lanes caused injury to 10 people injured.

August 2009: Stratford, South Carolina: South Carolina man drove the wrong-way on I-95 narrowly escaping a head-on collision with a semi-truck. Alcohol suspected.

August 3, 2009: Providence, Rhode Island: 50-year-old male wrong-way driver on I-95 caused three crashes; police allege alcohol was involved. Two people were hospitalized.

August 3, 2009: Chicago, Illinois: Wrong-way collision on 1-55 (Stevenson Expressway) south of downtown, in the northbound lanes, near Halsted Street in the Bridgeport neighborhood. A 2003 Audi, going the wrong way, struck a 1993 Toyota head-on, killing a 38-year-old female passenger in the Toyota.

August 4, 2009: Libertyville, IL: Two-car crash caused by wrong-way driver on Route 176. Driver charged with with improper lane usage, driving in the wrong lane, driving on a suspended license and no insurance.

August 5, 2009: Louisville, KY: I-65 south of Outer Loop. Wrong way driver heading south in the northbound lanes, speeding, "running 90 or better.” No one reported killed

August 5, 2009: Fremont, California: Wrong-way driver on I-880 trying to avoid arrest; he did so, successfully, driving southbound in the northbound lanes.

August 7, 2009: Colorado Springs, Colorado: Head-on collision in the eastbound lanes of westbound U.S. 24. Man drove wrong way and was arrested for DUI.

August 9, 2009: Tarrytown, NY: Elderly woman drove wrong-way entering off-ramp at Exit 9, driving north in the southbound lanes of the Tappan Zee Bridge. Reports suggest that she also drove the wrong way through the tolls! Reverse the charges?

August 9, 2009: Charlotte, North Carolina: Wrong-way collision on 1-85. Young wrong-way driver later charged with DWI.

August 9, 2009: Fountain Valley, Orange County, California: Wrong-way collision caused by drunk driver trying to elude police.

August 9, 2009: Southfield, Michigan (my neck of the woods- Suburb just north of Detroit): Drunk driver drove westbound in the eastbound lanes of Eight Mile Road (made famous by the Eminem movie of the same name). No collision; police able to stop and arrest the driver before any damage was done.

August 10, 2009: Wappinger, New York: Four injured in three car head-on collision on Route 9. Wrong way driver lost consciousness and drifted across the divider. More of a "cross the center-line" accident than a "wrong-way driving". No report of drinking.

August 10, 2009: Hanover Township, Pennsylvania: 23 year old motorcyclist died when teenage driver drove west in the eastbound lanes of Route 30. Improper passing (and, perhaps, youthful inexperience) was the cause of the tragedy.

August 11, 2009: Barnes County, North Dakota: Wrong-way crash on 1-94. Elderly man drove westbound in the eastbound lanes of travel, striking female driver. "Confusion" was alleged as the cause.

August 12, 2009: Little Chute, Wisconsin: Middle aged man was driving south in the northbound lanes of 441 crashed into two northbound vehicles. No reported of fatalities; driver cited for driving under the influence of drugs.

August 13, 2009: Marlborough, Massachusetts: Police chase stolen truck resulting in truck driving wrong-way on I-495.

August 14, 2009: Toledo, Ohio: Wrong-way collision on I-280. Diabetic condition apparently caused confusion, similar to alcohol intoxication for elderly female driver. No deaths or life threatening injuries reported.

August 14, 2009: Greenville County, SC: 88-year-old driving Ford Ranger north on I-385 south struck oncoming Chevy Tahoe, head-on. Injuries, but no deaths, reported.

August 15, 2009: Queen Creek, Arizona: Wrong-way driver struck bicyclist at Ocotillo Road near 228th Street. Driver of at-fault vehicle driving westbound in the eastbound lanes. Alcohol a factor?

August 17, 2009: Garrett, Indiana: Wrong-way driver lost control of vehicle, drove south in the northbound lanes of I-69, crossed the median and struck a pole. Again, more of a "cross the center line" type of accident than a "wrong-way" collision.

August 17, 2009: Denver, Colorado: Wrong-way vehicle going opposite way on one-way street struck a moped driver. Police seeking information on female driver and female passenger. Call Crime Stoppers, anonymously at 720-913-STOP (7867); you may be eligible for a cash reward.

August 17, 2009: Hazlet, New Jersey: Wrong-way collision on Garden State Parkway, northbound in southbound lanes, resulting in minor injuries.

August 18, 2009: Denver, Colorado: Wrong way driver killed in 10-car pileup on I-25.

I count 26 wrong-way auto accidents in late July, early August. Lawsuit Financial is concerned about the safety issues confronting all innocent drivers in these situations. If you or someone you love has been involved in a wrong-way auto accident, or suffered a serious injury in any other type of auto accident or other injury related accident caused by the negligence of another, Lawsuit Financial can provide assistance two different ways:

1. If you do not have an attorney, Lawsuit Financial has a network of attorneys all over the country waiting to assist you. You do not need to search the web or the yellow pages. You need only to call Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) and we will provide you with the legal specialist in your area and for your type of injury litigation.

2. If your accidental injuries cause long or short term disability or income loss and you are upside down, financially, Lawsuit Financial will provide lawsuit funding against your personal injury lawsuit. Lawsuit financing is available across the country. We provide auto accident lawsuit funding, premises liability (slip & fall) lawsuit funding, medical malpractice lawsuit funding, construction accident lawsuit funding, maritime accident lawsuit funding, airplane crash lawsuit funding, train crash lawsuit funding, dog bite lawsuit funding, wrongful death lawsuit funding, or any other type of personal injury lawsuit funding.

One toll free number is all you need to remember. One call to 1-877-377-SUIT and Lawsuit Financial will provide you with the best legal representation in your area and the most experienced and compassionate legal finance services available. Please, be careful out there; as you can see from this report, wrong-way, careless, even drunk drivers may be just around the corner.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation, a leading national litigation funding company, is proud to announce that, in partnership with trial lawyers around the country, with InjuryBoard, a consumer safety community, and through its charitable arm, the InjuryBoard Foundation, Lawsuit Financial will be donating a Nintendo Wii Gaming System on August 17, 2009 to St. Jude’s Hospital in Memphis, TN in memory of Justin Rochkind, the nephew of Mark Bello, owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial. Bello chose St. Jude’s hospital because he says, “Despite their generosity and gallant efforts my nephew succumbed to cancer at the age of 18 and I would like to give back to them and do my part to help others. Justin loved music, magic, family and life. He and his family were very grateful to St. Jude’s for all it did and tried to do. This gift is the least I can do, on behalf of my family, to honor Justin and to thank the hospital and its fine staff.”

Due to the efforts of InjuryBoard, the first three Mondays in August, 53 law firms and companies from 25 states will band together to donate more than 60 Nintendo Wii Gaming Systems to medical facilities across the country. With more than half its membership participating, InjuryBoard hopes the event will inspire attorneys everywhere to give back to their communities.

The Wii was selected because of a new rehabilitation treatment technique known as “Wiihab.”[1] Wiihab makes use of the gaming system’s unique, live motion play to offer patients a fun and less painful exercise medium. The InjuryBoard firms, all of whom represent victims of serious accidents, hope that their donations will ease the recovery of those in need and will help patients find enjoyment in an otherwise painful and difficult process. InjuryBoard member, local attorney and business owner Mark Bello explains, “Our goal in this time of economic recession is to reach out to facilities like St. Jude’s Hospital to help them provide the care that budget realities might otherwise prevent.”

“Our members are some of the kindest, most genuine people I know,” stated InjuryBoard founder and Tampa, FL attorney Tom Young. “These are folks who shunned big law firms, prestige and easy money in favor of helping their communities. I am constantly humbled by the commitment our members have to helping injured people. Our hope with events like this is that we can do some good for injured people, from victims of auto accidents to defective products, by helping them get back on their feet. This Wii giveaway is a natural extension of the work our member firms do every day.”

The giveaway is sponsored by the InjuryBoard Foundation, a nonprofit organization that acts as the charitable arm of InjuryBoard.com. The purpose of the InjuryBoard Foundation is to help individuals and communities live safer, happier lives through increased awareness and community outreach. Young says that the incredible success and broad participation in this Wii giveaway has inspired InjuryBoard to organize these events on a regular basis. “We plan on utilizing the foundation to help as many people as we can. This is just the beginning," Young adds. "We’re planning child safety seat drives, bicycle helmet giveaways and anything else we can think of to get people the help they need and make our communities safer."

Lawsuit Financial celebrates 10 years as the leading specialist in providing solid litigation investment returns while delivering lawsuit funding to cash-strapped plaintiffs, allowing them to focus on their pending case – not on their financial responsibilities. Lawsuit Financial will provide necessities of life legal funding for many types of litigation including auto accidents, premises liability/slip & fall, medical malpractice, personal injury, product liability, wrongful death, and employment suits, among others. Because of our significant expertise, we can fund cases that others can’t or won’t. Lawsuit Financial may also fund litigation costs, structured settlements, expert witness fees, and pending attorney fees. Lawsuit Financial can also be reached at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848)

The Consumer Attorneys of California may be teaming up with Robert Peck, the Washington D.C. attorney who has been successful fighting caps on constitutional grounds in various states, to challenge MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975). KCRA 3 in California reports that a recent challenge was denied in the state court of appeals, but may be on its way to the California Supreme Court.

I have been actively blogging about these issues at this location and many others, because I am not convinced that the public is aware of the injustices made possible by these statutory restrictions on damage recoveries. Without such restrictive legislation, there are no limits to how much money you can recover when you or a loved one is maimed or killed in the operating room; you submit your case to a jury and the jury decides value. Medical bills and wages are "out of pocket" expenses and not subject to any damage 'cap'. It is 'pain and suffering' awards (and damages that punish outrageous conduct, called "punitive damages") that the pro-insurance company caps are designed to limit. Pain and suffering and/or punitive damage awards can be millions of dollars. In California and other states with these caps, the pain and suffering recoveries are limited to $250,000, a 30 year old cap figure, established by the 1975 law.

Sometimes, the circumstances of a catastrophic injury or death require an award of millions for the injured person's sustenance, but that doesn't matter to the pro-insurance group (some of your own legislators are part of this group-remember that next time you step into the voting booth); these pro-insurance, anti-consumer guys just don't want to pay it. They would rather hold onto it as "profit" and we all know that insurance companies make billions in "profits". Instead, you pay for it in public assistance. That's right, folks, PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, if victims are not appropriately compensated by the insurance company and the medical facility that took on the risk and received compensation for it, public funds will be the only means of support for the injured, disabled and survivors of those killed.

The KCRA article features the case of Stanley Stinnett a young man who died after a "series of medical mistakes" in a California hospital. His widow settled with the hospital, and the case went to trial against the doctor. The jury found in her favor, and awarded her $1.4 million in medical expenses and wages, and $6 million for pain and suffering. Under current law, she won't see $6 million; her recovery is capped at $250,000, a $5.75 windfall for the doctor and his insurance company.

There is an argument to be made that restrictive laws like MICRA result in lower insurance premiums for the medical community, which, in turn, would make health care more affordable. The fear is that "good doctors" would leave their respective states. Wouldn't punishing bad doctors with higher rates and rewarding good ones with lower rates would accomplish the same thing? Wouldn't a concerted effort by the medical community to improve transparency and reporting and limit careless medical mistakes? Why punish the victim/patient? As Chris Dolan, an attorney/member of the Consumer Attorneys of California says:

"It (capping pain and suffering at $250,000) was just a terrible thing to do to people who've been harmed and a great thing to do to the insurance companies' bottom line."

This is a question of conscience, a question of justice, a question of fairness. The caps argument reminds me of the Ronald Reagan "trickle down economics" theory that George Bush senior once called "voodoo economics". The suggestion that insurance company profits, made on the backs of the injured, maimed, disabled and deceased, will "trickle down" into the pockets of consumers and doctors is ludicrous. It is also grossly unfair to the one of the weakest segments of our society. The threat of a large medical malpractice award is a strong deterrent against that keeps us safer. If there are limited or no consequences for bad behavior, bad behavior will continue. It is really that simple.

Lawsuit Financial provides medical malpractice lawsuit funding. It is one of a very select group of legal finance companies that has the expertise to underwrite and fund medical malpractice cases. Cap or no cap, we fund cases against their prospective case value; thus, arguing for the abolishment of caps does not have any significant, direct benefit to our company. However, Lawsuit Financial is a pro-justice, pro-consumer company. As such, we will continue to stand up for justice, in as many forums as possible. Please, show your strong support for the abolishment of caps or limits on recoveries in medical malpractice cases and/or other personal injury cases. Contact your elected officials, find out where they stand on these issues, and let them know that you will not vote for someone who supports these types of injustices.

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post about the "texting while driving" trend. Today, I came across this little article in the ABA Journal. I thought it might be a good follow-up to yesterday's post.

The article indicates that drivers who talk on their cell phones while driving are as likely to be involved in an accident as someone with a .08 alcohol level (at or almost at the legal limit of a DUIL in many states). Further, it names coffee, hot soup, and tacos as the most dangerous food items. It asks the question: What is the craziest thing you've seen someone do while driving? The attached article does not provide the answer, but I got my hands on some of the "featured answers" to the ABA's question. While they are funny, perhaps unbelievable, but the activities reported are also very dangerous. Here are the top three "featured answers":

Posted by Laura: "I was on the Pennsylvania Turnpike near Philadelphia, and I saw a man playing the bagpipes while driving. It was crazy!"

Posted by David D.: "Playing the trumpet!! On my way back to Champaign, IL, two years ago, I saw a man practicing the trumpet while he was driving on 57 South. We immediately took out a camera and snapped a pic."

Posted by Tom: "I saw a driver playing the flute on GA400 in Atlanta. For a brief moment I thought perhaps he was using it to control his car. Maybe he and David D's trumpet player can start a band!"

These guys make texting while driving seem like minor activity. I don't know what laws are on the books against various means of distracted driving; Lawsuit Financial supports, as stated yesterday, a national ban on texting while driving. Hopefully, each state already has laws or will pass laws against other forms of distracted driving. In my wildest nightmare, I never thought we needed laws prohibiting the playing of musical instruments while driving; I figured that common sense would suggest that this is extremely dangerous, not only to yourself, but to others. All I can say is: be careful out there; watch out for the bagpipe guy!

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!

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

I read an interesting article in the New York Times that I want to share with my readers. Apparently, sitting jurors have been using their iPhones and Blackberrys to research the parties and cases they are being ask to render verdict upon and sending the information they find to friends and family. For those of you who don't know, jurors are supposed to render verdicts based solely on evidence heard in the confines of the courtroom and ruled admissible by the presiding judge. Jurors are not permitted to pursue answers or data outside of the courtroom. Evidence ruled inadmissible is supposed to be unavailable to them and they are not permitted to consider it. In today's technological society, a juror can access the web on his/her mobile phone and seek the information that was excluded in court, in direct violation of a judicial order or the rules of evidence in state or federal court. Secret deliberations and opinions are being texted to friends, direct from the jury room!

The article reports that several juries and verdicts are suspect in state and federal court and in civil and criminal trials. It provides numerous examples of abuse. When a single juror in Florida federal drug trial admitted that had done case research online (violating a specific judicial instruction), eight other jurors confessed to the same misconduct. A mistrial was declared, after eight weeks of trial, costing taxpayers a fortune. In Arkansas, a $12.6 million verdict in a civil trial may be overturned because a juror was "Twittering" updates throughout the trial.

In the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator, the article reports, a juror posted trial updates on Twitter and Facebook; while the senator was found guilty, the centerpiece of the appeal will, most certainly, be the Twitter and Facebook activities conducted by this juror.

An automobile accident case can be effected by a juror's examination of an intersection, or the distance between two points, by using Google Maps. In a medical malpractice case, a medical condition or procedure can be researched on WebMD or Wikipedia. Expert witnesses, patent or product histories, and attorneys involved in a case can be researched at various expert, legal and news sites.

The technological circumvention of long established court and evidence rules is a serious issue and creates the potential of a systematic denial of justice in civil and criminal trials throughout the United States. The article indicates that the number cases "disrupted" by Internet use is unknown but opines that mobile phone technology and easy access to the Web will certainly increase in the months and years to come. Court officers can ban mobile phones from the courtroom, but, unless jurors are sequestered, easy access is available at home.

What do I think? I believe that judges must be very specific and forceful in their instructions about these issues. They need to exercise firm control of their courtrooms. Jurors need to be carefully and fully instructed on the rules, what is excluded, what is admissible. Judges must mention that the use of the Internet is taboo and indicate examples of sites (Google, Twitter, Wikipedia, Facebook, etc.) where misconduct has occurred. They, and the attorneys involved, should advise that the rules of court and evidence have been around for centuries and that only evidence admitted in the courtroom can be considered in rendering a verdict. The article suggests, and I agree, that judges must call on fellow jurors to keep their brother or sister jurors "in line". Most people want to do the right thing; some just need to be shown the way. I know that a promise of appropriate behavior is just that and actions speak louder than words, but educating jurors on what is misconduct in the courtroom and out will go a long way to resolving some of these problems.

If you or someone you love have been seriously injured in an automobile accident caused by a drunk driver or any negligent driver, or in any other type of accident, Lawsuit Financial would like to provide assistance. If you have retained a lawyer and filed an auto accident lawsuit, we can get you a lawsuit cash advance against your pending personal injury lawsuit. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. The call or the visit are free; the advice may be priceless.

As I have reported, many times, at this location, the arguments that there is some sort of "lawsuit abuse" or lawsuit crisis" in America are insurance industry and chamber of commerce conspiracies to justify unneeded and anti-justice tort reform. Continued big business and insurance industry success in this phony endeavor will result in even more obscene profits for these industries and a greater injustice for the injured and disabled. Recent statistics from an staunch ally of big business, support my theory that further tort reform is unnecessary and the "lawsuit crisis" is, and always has been, a myth.

Former President George W. Bush's Justice Department statistics show that the number of lawsuits filed in the country are actually declining. According to the former president's Justice Department, the number of personal injury cases filed in U.S. District Courts fell by 79% between 1995-2003. According to Bureau of Justice statistics, state lawsuits are declining as well, showing a 31% decrease from 1992-2001.

So, why would big business and big insurance lie about "lawsuit abuse" and cry at the top of their voices that there is a "lawsuit crisis, you ask? They do it to make more money! They do it to deprive ordinary citizens, injured or disabled through no fault of their own, of their appropriate level of compensation and/or their day in court. They do it to insulate themselves from laws meant to protect the weakest segments of American society. But, the numbers do not lie and the statistics have no stake in the outcome. Further, these numbers and statistics come from agents of George W. Bush, one of the largest proponents and benefactors of "tort reform" in the last 14 years (6 years of proposing it as Governor of Texas and 8 years as President).

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) has the report. For more information, click here. Ask the AAJ or your local or state trial lawyer association what you can do to help debunk these myths.

Lawsuit Financial is committed to exposing these types of myths about our civil justice system. All 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. We provide non-recourse auto accident lawsuit funding, airplane or helicopter crash lawsuit funding, medical malpractice lawsuit funding, premises liability/slip & fall lawsuit funding, Maritime/Jones Act lawsuit funding, construction accident lawsuit funding, and lawsuit funding for any other personal injury lawsuit that has resulted in financial hardship. We offer free telephone advice at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or you can visit us on the web, for free, with no obligation, at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. The call and/or the visit are free; the advice and assistance could be priceless.

I confess. Like many Americans, I took most of historic yesterday off to watch the inauguration. I was proud to witness events displaying that we, the people, had finally overcome some of the mindless hatred and prejudice of the past to elect, for the first time, an African-American citizen, as president of the United States. The timing, a day after Martin Luther King's birthday celebration, was equally memorable. President Obama has a daunting task in front of him. We face a severe economic crisis, wars on several fronts, and a loss of confidence in our government and our elected officials. In my opinion, we also continue to sacrifice the civil rights of the individual at the alter of big business. It seems that what is good for business is important, regardless of whether it is bad for individual citizens.

In his inaugural address, President Obama said these words: " Our Founding Fathers...drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man...Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake".

Granted, he was not necessarily talking about civil justice or the civil justice system in America. The words, though, apply to the topic. Many attempts have been made, at state, judicial, and federal levels, to erode civil justice for individuals in favor of large corporate interests. Former President George W. Bush was solidly in favor of business over individuals or, to reverse a slogan of the American Association for Justice: "profits over people". I challenge President Obama to stand for individual justice for all our citizens, to respect the right of all citizens to a trial by jury, to reject proposed tort immunities and other restrictions on our citizens' access to our court system, and to restore the rule of law to our civil justice system. I challenge him to put "people over profits". Big business can surely profit without the need to sacrifice the rights of individual. I believe that President Obama is a man of vision who will clearly see that the path to corporate profits should not and cannot be paved on the backs of the injured or disabled in our society. Mr. President: I take you at and hold you to your words.

Lawsuit Financial provides legal funding completely contingent on the outcome of the case; the money is free is the case resolves without payment to the plaintiff. Lawsuit Financial provides litigation funding for Auto Accident victims and all other personal injury victims with pending lawsuits. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848), and talk to an experienced legal finance representative for free. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We want to be your legal funding company and we will do everything in our power to earn your business.

As reported previously at this site, 'tort reform' legislation, especially a "free pass" for the drug industry, is a bad idea for United States citizens. Usually, these types of reforms are proposed at the behest of "big business" or "big pharmaceutical" using the national, state or local Chambers of Commerce as an introductory vehicle. The suggestion is, usually, that "tort reform" is good for "business". While it certainly may assist big business in making higher profits, clearly, it does so by putting the safety and constitutional rights of individual citizens in peril.

In two separate posts at this site, August 15, 2008, "Doctors Agree That Lawsuits Ensure Drug Safety Far Better than the FDA" and October 29, 2008, "Drug Company Immunity-A Bad Deal for U.S. Citizens", I have lamented that Michigan, my state, is the only state in the union that provides absolute immunity for manufacturers of FDA approved drugs. The legislation that created this abomination, additional justice-restricting measures, and a number of anti-justice judicial appointments by a three-term Republican governor have combined to do significant and irreparable damage to a vast number of innocent and disabled Michigan citizens and taxpayers.

With the Michigan experience as a background, I am sad to report that, in an article in the Columbus (Georgia) Ledger-Inquirer dated January 13, 2009, Associated Press Reporter Greg Bluestein reports that similar legislation is now being proposed in Georgia by Governor Sonny Perdue. The legislation would make Georgia the second state in the union to provide absolute immunity to FDA approved drugs.

As is typical with this type of proposal, it claims to have the politically correct aim of reducing what the governor calls "frivolous" lawsuits. The measure would hold plaintiffs responsible for corporate defendants' attorney fees if their lawsuits are dismissed "early in the process". There are two obvious problems with this standard: 1. Just because a judge (perhaps, with a political agenda) dismisses a case it does not follow that it was "frivolous" and 2. It would have a chilling effect on the institution of serious litigation because of the fear that a judge with a political agenda would dismiss the litigation and assess attorney fees.

Further, as always, reducing "frivolous lawsuit" filings is never the agenda of tort reformers. The true agenda is to reduce the filing of serious lawsuits and the amount big business and big insurance are required to pay the victims. That is why these proposals have a Michigan-like drug company immunity (if litigated drug has received FDA approval). Whether the drug kills, maims or injures is not the standard; the manufacturer only needs to show that its very dangerous and defective product received FDA approval to avoid liability. This is, apparently, what the former Michigan governor and, now, Georgia Governor Perdue mean when utilizing the term "meritless litigation". By the way, Perdue rolled out his 'plan' at the annual Georgia Chamber of Commerce breakfast in front of 2,500 business owners and Chamber members. "With the help of the General Assembly, we'll make plain that the threat of 'meritless litigation' is not a viable business strategy in Georgia," said the Governor.

Thankfully, Georgia citizens can rely on the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, the state association of lawyers who represent 'citizens' or 'plaintiff's' in litigation, to fight these proposals on behalf of their current and future clients.

"People in Georgia are really hurting. We have some really serious issues that legislators have been working to solve, and right now they're proposing on top of all this to take away the constitutional rights of the people in Georgia?" asked their spokesperson.

I have called upon Michigan citizens to rally against this type of legislation and I call upon Georgia citizens to do the same. Each one of us, each one of us, is one accident away from being catastrophically injured or disabled. To find yourself in that circumstance and to have your own elected officials (people you may have voted for) working on legislation to prevent you from receiving justice, from receiving simple and appropriate compensation for the wrong perpetrated upon you, is serious insult upon serious injury. Don't let the Chamber, the Governor or the Legislature do this to you or your fellow citizens without voicing your strong opposition to such proposed legislation. As we have seen with the financial bailout, when the responsible business refuses to pay or gets a "free pass" from doing so, the taxpayers are left holding the bag. A disabled person will rely on government benefits (taxpayers) when private business or insurance is excused from responsibility.

I have seen, in Michigan, what grass roots organization against these type of politics can do in opposition. I encourage you to get involved, organize, contact your legislator and state or local trial lawyer or consumer advocacy associations. Once legislation like this passes, it is almost impossible to get rid of. Therefore, Georgia, I implore you to oppose it from the top of your voice.

Lawsuit Financial is a nationwide legal funding company that provides litigation plaintiffs with interim financial help while they wait for their litigation to resolve. This important lawsuit financing service is available for many drug liability cases and for auto accidents and/or any other type of personal injury case. Please visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com our call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT(7848).

Happy New Year to all of our readers and clients. Hopefully 2009 will be a year of health and happiness for all. The National Law Journal reports that 2009 will be a very happy year for plaintiffs and attorneys who specialize in employment litigation.

According to a January 12, 2009 article written by staff reporter Tresa Baldas , "juries are expected to stick it to employers in workplace disputes this year". Reportedly, the reason is that jurors who have experienced a job loss or have watched a friend or relative suffer a job loss in this economy will be more likely to relate to or have sympathy for a plaintiff in a wrongful termination or discrimination situation. The article also suggests that the public trust in large companies has been eroded by the crisis and subsequent bailout of some of those companies (like insurance giant AIG, for example), who the public perceives to be unworthy of a taxpayer funded bailout.

It will be interesting to see whether this prediction comes to fruition. Lawsuit Financial Corporation has always provided legal finance to victims of wrongful termination and employment discrimination. It is expected that the demand for legal funding for these types of lawsuits, as well as traditional personal injury lawsuit funding, auto accident lawsuit funding, slip and fall lawsuit funding, and medical malpractice lawsuit funding will be on the upswing for 2009, as people look for alternate sources of revenue. Lawsuit Financial is committed to helping workplace and injury victims get the money they need so that their litigation can be handled to an appropriate and just resolution. Please visit www.lawsuitfinancial.com or call Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 1-877-377 SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your legal finance situation.

I read an interesting expose put out by the American Association of Justice regarding insurance company tactics employed to prevent ordinary citizens from getting appropriate compensation for their injuries. Tricks of the Trade: How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse is written in the form of a law review article and tells the sad tale of the lengths that insurance companies will go to in their effort to subvert justice.

I do not intend, in this forum to regurgitate the entire article; it is very well written and informative, and the consumer (and the attorney) would be wise to read the entire article. To highlight, however, the article breaks down insurance tactics into six distinct categories:

1. Deny: This refers to the tactic of systematically denying claims to increase the bottom line, rewarding employees who do it well and punishing or replacing those who don't.

2. Delay: This is the practice of payment avoidance until people give up (Lawsuit Financial can provide assistance, here; more on that later) or, in despicable fashion, with elderly and chronically ill policy holders, refuse payment until the policy holder dies!

3. Incomprehensibilty: Refers to policy language that is virtually impossible for a lay person to understand, resulting in their not pursuing valuable, paid for, rights

4. Credit Scoring: The companies use credit scores to artificially increase rates to the poor and certain ethnic groups.

5. Retroactive Rescission or Cancellation: This is a policy used against seriously ill people to avoid paying a claim that will require multiple and substantial benefits over time because of the severity of the illness or injury.

6. Canceling for an Inquiry: This is the practice of canceling someone before they file a claim for the "sin" of merely inquiring about the possibility.

The article suggests several measures that the consumer can take to help avoid these tactics. The article recommends that the consumer:

Read his/her policy carefully, know his/her coverages and how to appeal a denial of coverage.

Be very careful in completing insurance claims forms as the insurance company may use an honest mistake as a reason to cancel or deny coverage.

Do not cash a premium refund check because this will likely rescind the consumer's insurance policy.

Put everything in writing; you will likely need it for proof. Keep a record of all correspondence and bills.

Contact your state insurance department or, if all else fails, consult with a lawyer. Most of all, says the author, DO NOT GIVE UP. Insurance companies count on you giving up. The author encourages you to fight for your rights.

While I strongly urge all consumers to read the important article that inspired this post, it does not mention lawsuit funding as an option to avoid some of these tactics and that is, in my humble opinion, a fundamental failing.

After you've hired that lawyer and decided not to give up, this serious question arises if you are injured and/or disabled: "How am I going to pay my bills? How can I fight this huge, well-financed and powerful insurance company when I can't work and have no income or savings?"

The answer, of course, is a non-recourse, legal cash advance from Lawsuit Financial. Legal finance is the great equalizer; the money that you need to get you from an earlier stage in the lawsuit to its conclusion. You will not have to cave in to insurance company stall tactics; legal funding will level the playing field and give you the staying power to slay Goliath. Lawsuit Financial provides litigation funding for most personal injury cases, disability cases and other insurance cases. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We will evaluate your lawsuit funding situation promptly and fairly, often in less than 24 hours. You have nothing to lose. The call is free; the advice could save your valuable assets and, above all, save your valuable case.

Since our historic election of Barak Obama, a week ago, I have seen several articles that suggest that the subject of "tort reform" (which is really means "anti-justice" and "pro-insurance company") will be a hot political issue in his administration.

First, CQ reports: "One early policy battle in the Obama years will probably be the question of 'tort reform...plaintiffs' attorneys are keen to reverse Bush-era restrictions on tort litigation, while business groups fear that a Democrat-dominated federal government will do the bidding of the Democrats' influential trial-lawyer base of donors and expand plaintiffs' rights in tort cases... Barack Obama may well disappoint both advocacy factions."

Obama cast a 2005 Senate vote for a law shifting class action lawsuits to federal courts, considered a major business community priority. Linda Lipsen, senior vice president for public affairs of the American Association for Justice, said that while Obama's 2005 vote is 'a concern,' "...we are comfortable with our new president's priorities." According to CQ, the AAJ plans to press for an expansion on the right to sue for injuries related to faulty medical devices and for legislation barring companies from requiring customers to arbitrate rather than sue. Despite the outcome of the election, a spokesperson for the US Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform warned that "victory at the polls does not mean voters 'want Congress to give the plaintiffs' bar more ways to sue.'"

To further indicate that war is about to be waged on the liability front, the National Law Journal reports that "business and trial lawyers are expected to go head-to-head again over tort-related issues, but congressional experts now give the trial lawyers significantly more heft in the new Congress." David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said that another "big agenda item" are "reversals of the Bush administration's expansion of federal pre-emption of state tort lawsuits in a number of regulated areas [and, in the workplace,] removing the current $300,000 cap on compensatory damages and punitive damages for violations of Title VII and the Americans With Disabilities Act."

It is also important to note that President Obama will appoint several federal district court and appellate court judges during his administration, including probable appointments to the United States Supreme Court. Thus, the battle lines are drawn and we should have a very interesting 4-8 years (at both state and federal levels) monitoring the simple right to civil justice in this country.

Lawsuit Financial provides litigation funding for Auto Accident cases, Premises Liability cases, Medical Malpractice cases and all other personal injury victims with pending lawsuits. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848), and talk to an experienced legal finance representative for free. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We want to be your law suit funding company and we will do everything in our power to earn your business.

One topic of controversy in Michigan law is the so-called "open and obvious" doctrine. The doctrine has established that if a defect is "open & obvious", and a person falls over or on it, that person cannot collect damages unless the defect is "effectively unavoidable" or creates "an unreasonably high risk of severe harm". Most recent Michigan decisions have declared conditions that would cause someone to fall are unlikely to cause severe harm; therefore, the "high risk" requirement is not met. Plaintiffs attorneys have strongly disagreed; as stated before in this forum, the death of diet Doctor Atkins and the severe injury suffered by Ed McMahon caused by falls would suggest that falls can and often do result in serious and fatal injuries and that simple falls can create an "unreasonably high risk of severe harm".

Recently, the New York Times studied the issue of the serious injuries suffered by and the complex care needed for elderly citizens who have fallen. The article focuses upon the elderly and indicates that, according to the Center for Disease control, 1.8 million Americans over age 65 are injured in falls. If the fall is "minor", a victim may rebound as if an injury never happened. For some, however, the fall sets off a downward spiral of physical and emotional problems — including serious illnesses and infections that become too much for their bodies to withstand. In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, out of 433,000 people over 65 who were admitted to hospitals after suffering a fall, an astounding 15,800 died as a direct result of the fall. This statistic does not include a large number of seniors who survive the fall but cannot survive the indirect consequences of the fall.

The next time someone suggests to you that a fall is no big deal, remind them of Dr. Atkins, Ed McMahon, or the unfortunate people referred to in the New York Times article.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Michigan residents should be outraged at the injustice of the "open & obvious" standard and the suggestion that a fall cannot create an "unreasonably high risk of severe harm". Contact your state representatives and ask them to sponsor a bill to make premises liability law fair for Michigan citizens. Every other area of the law is subject to the application of the comparative negligence standard except Premises Liability. Ask your State Representative to apply straight comparative negligence to Premises Liability litigation.

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

Apparently, the United States Supreme Court is going to take up the issue of absolute immunity for drug manufacturers if their dangerous products are FDA approved. Levine v Wyeth has been a topic of much discussion in legal circles and the case causes significant concern. As reported previously in this blog, my home state, Michigan, is currently the only state that gives drug manufacturers complete immunity if their horrendous drug was first FDA approved. As a result, disabled and disfigured Michigan citizens as well as the survivors of those killed by these bad drugs have been completely shut out of any chance of recovery. Thus, Vioxx, Fen-Phen, Redux, etc. victims can be compensated in 49 states; Michigan citizens are shut out.

A Supreme Court ruling for Wyeth in Levine v Wyeth would nationalize the Michigan disaster and prevent all United States citizens from pursuing big pharmacuetical companies for the devastating consequences of bad drugs. We lock up people for selling drugs that make us high; but we should give a free pass to those who sell drugs that kill and maim? What's wrong with this picture? Here's an interesting quote from the article that prompted this post:

"With 11,000 regulated drugs on the market and almost 100 more approved every year, the understaffed agency [the FDA] doesn't have the resources to adequately ensure both efficacy and reasonable safety... The FDA alone simply lacks the ability to serve as the sole guarantor of drug safety,'' said editors of the New England Journal of Medicine. This marks the first time that every editor-in- chief of the medical journal signed a Supreme Court brief. Obviously, FDA approval does not even approach a guarantee of safety for any drug; it is illogical and almost criminal to grant immunity simply because this overtaxed agency grants approval to a dangerous pharmaceutical.

Complete immunity for FDA approved drugs has been a disaster for Michigan citizens. It is my fervent hope that the United States Supreme Court has the wisdom and compassion to realize that drug company immunity is a free pass to the drug industry to injure, maim and kill our citizens without regard to safety. The most important safety tool available to our citizens is the threat of a lawsuit against an offending drug manufacturer. The elimination of this vital tool will permit the industry to "self-regulate". If we have learned anything from the country's financial crisis, we have learned that self-regulation does not work.

Lawsuit Financial is a nationwide legal funding company that provides litigation plaintiffs with interim financial help while they wait for their litigation to resolve. This important lawsuit financing service is available for many drug liability cases and for auto accidents and/or any other type of personal injury case. Please visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com our call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT(7848).

It has been almost one month since Ohio Governor Ted Strickland signed new legal finance legislation in Ohio that permitted Ohio citizens to engage in non-recourse civil litigation advance transactions with lawsuit funding companies like Lawsuit Financial. Since then, we have received many requests for Ohio legal funding from Ohio Citizens and we have provided numerous legal cash advances to Ohio litigants. If you are from Ohio or from elsewhere in the United States, and have pending personal injury lawsuit with a retained attorney, Lawsuit Financial is ready to provide legal financial assistance to you and your family. If you do not yet have an attorney, Lawsuit Financial can assist you in locating an attorney who specializes in the type of case you wish to pursue.

Remember, under the new Ohio law:

1. Law suit funding contracts may be canceled by the consumer within five business days without penalty;

2. Legal finance contracts must provide the total dollar advance and a breakdown of fees, including the annualized rate of return, must be clearly disclosed in the contracts;

3. To be valid, the legal financing contract requires written acknowledgment by the attorney representing the consumer in the civil action or claim, specifying that the attorney has reviewed the contract and all case funding costs and fees have been disclosed;

4. For French and Spanish-speaking consumers, litigation funding contracts will be written in their primary language;

5. The lawsuit funding company must agree that it has no right to make any decisions involving the claim and its settlement (this has always been true of legal funding agreements).

Since personal injury cases almost always involve income loss, financial stress can often force the plaintiff to settle too early and too cheap. Lawsuit financing is provided to prevent that from happening. Lawsuit funding is provided completely contingent on the outcome of the case; the money is free if the case resolves without payment to the plaintiff. Lawsuit Financial also provides litigation funding for Auto Accident victims and all other personal injury victims with pending lawsuits. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848), and talk to an experienced legal finance representative for free. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We want to be your law suit funding company and we will do everything in our power to earn your business.

I recently came across an article in the Salt Lake Tribune detailing a study about "Never Events", those serious medical errors occurring in Utah hospitals that "are never supposed to happen". These kinds of studies are showing up in hospitals across the country and the trend is very disturbing. In an era where people's access to the civil justice system is being restricted or prevented, where compensation for serious injury or death is being capped by lawmakers at artificially low levels, serious injury and death caused by medical neglect is continuing to occur, unchecked, at an alarming rate.

In Utah, the study reflected "Never Events" from October 2001 to April 2007. During that time, there were 219 such events. 47% of these events resulted in death; 21% resulted in a major loss of body function; 25% involved wrong site surgeries, and 3% resulted in suicide.

Hospitals and doctors can do remarkable things for their patients; they save lives and cure illnesses every day, in hospitals and clinics all over the country. However, they can also make mistakes, serious ones, and making them accountable for those mistakes will make them more careful, almost always, and help prevent them from reoccurring. That is a good thing, isn't it? So, the next time you hear someone say "junk" or "frivolous" in front of the word "lawsuit", show him the referenced article. People are getting scarred, maimed, and, even killed by preventable medical neglect; when they or their loved ones sue for their damages or loss, they are chastised by their neighbors and restricted by the acts of their own government. Seeking redress for serious injuries or death is not a "frivolous" endeavor. We are all one incident or life-changing event from being the next victim of this type of unfortunate occurrence.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation is a leading provider of lawsuit financing. The company and its attorney/director, have more combined legal and litigation finance experience than anyone in the industry. Lawsuit Financial is a risk-taking company. We provide lawsuit capital advances in Birth Trauma, Medical Malpractice cases and we have unique trial lawyer expertise in evaluating and funding such cases. We also provide funding for Auto Accident Cases, Premises Liability Cases, Dog Bite Cases, Airplane Crash Cases and many other personal injury cases. Please call us toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your personal injury case funding situation. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

This unbelievable article should make all of us feel fortunate that we live in the United States. Even our increasingly restrictive tort system would never permit a result such as this.

A 22-year old woman from St Petersburg, was trying to become only the third woman in Russia's history to conclude a successful sexual harassment suit against her male employer.
She argued that she had been locked out of her office after refusing to have sex with her 47-year-old boss.

The judge said he threw out the case, not for lack of evidence, but because he felt that the employer had acted gallantly. "If we had no sexual harassment we would have no children," the judge ruled.

Apparently, sexual harassment in Russia was an accepted part of life in the work place, under Soviet rule, and little has changed in post-Soviet Russia. Obviously, the country has a long way to go on issues of equality of the sexes and a harassment-free workplace. So does the good old U S of A, but, compared to at least one country, we are light years ahead.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides non-recourse legal funding for victims of sexual harassment, employment discrimination, and other workplace injury litigation. We can, in most instances, provide 24-48 hours lawsuit funding after receiving minimal case information from the handling attorney. For a fast and free analysis of your case funding situation, call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We will do all that we can to assist you during this difficult time in your life.

I thought it was important to share this with the regular readers (or new ones) of this blog. I don't have much to say about it; it serves as a reminder to all who seek justice that anyone can argue anything, as long as there is an audience that believes in the nonsense being proposed. In this instance, the so-called Institute for Legal Reform (simply, an anti-justice organization looking to restrict the rights of average injured or disabled citizens to seek compensation for their injuries or disabilities in the civil justice system) has published an article entitled "Is Lawsuit Abuse Threatening Your Child's Education?"

Essentially, the absurd position taken in the article is that fear of lawsuits is eliminating school recess and causing the removal or playground equipment from America's schools. However, even a video that is the centerpiece of this article admits that safety (or lack of it) is one reason behind this so-called phenomenon.

While some opine that there are multiple reasons that schools are removing recess from their schedules (one example is to do more teaching of the tests required by No Child Left Behind), those reasons really beg the safety question, so do the constant attacks on the civil justice system. Attacking litigation, and, by implication, trial lawyers and litigants is currently popular (unless, of course, you are the one who is injured or disabled), but I have to ask: Will common sense ever prevail? My friend, Jan Brandon, a Michigan trial attorney said it best: "You have to wonder if they ever considered the alternative of just making things safe to begin with."

Profound? Absurd? Industry could avoid lawsuits by, simply, making things safe? What a novel concept! So, the next time you see an article like this, instead of immediately attacking the litigant or the litigation, ask whether the individual or company being sued could have provided its product or service with safety measures that would have prevented the incident from occurring in the first place. Does that sound fair?

Lawsuit Financial is a leading provider of legal funding services in Product Liability litigation and, in addition, provides lawsuit financing for Auto Accident cases, Premises Liability cases, Medical Malpractice cases and many other types of personal injury litigation. Contact us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com or call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848). The call and the advice are absolutely free. We specialize in assisting "David" in beating "Goliath".

Dave Freeman, co-author of the best-selling book "100 Things to Do Before You Die" has died. He was only 47years old. He died after hitting his head in a fall at his Venice, CA home.

Regular readers of this blog might be wondering why I would report on this; it is, seemingly, unrelated to legal issues. No lawsuit has been filed; typically, a fall at one's own home is an excluded event in a homeowner's insurance policy. I doubt that Mr. Freeman's family will be able to pursue any type of litigation.

I have two reasons for penning this post: One is, simply, to point out the obvious irony. Life is short; I didn't know Mr. Freeman, but he knew that life is precious and, sometimes, precarious, and he wrote about it. He counseled all of us to enjoy life to its fullest. The best way to honor Mr. Freeman's memory is to read his book and do some of things he suggested or those things you've always wanted to do but "never find the time". I've certainly put things off for "later"; I'm certain most of you have too. Enjoy life, before you run out of time.

The second reason for writing this is more true to my form and my roots. In Michigan, recent court decisions have placed serious restrictions on a person's right to litigate premises liability/slip and fall cases. One of the main justifications for these restrictions is the false premise that a fall is unlikely to cause a serious injury. Well, I suggest that those who support that ridiculous theory should have a talk with Mr. Freeman's or, perhaps, Dr Atkins' (the famous diet doctor who also died from a fall in 2003) loved ones. Perhaps they should talk with Ed MacMahon (the subject of a previous post on this blog), whose serious injuries from a fall has turned his financial life upside down. Of course a fall can cause a serious injury and to suggest otherwise is nonsense spewed by the so-called tort reformers. We, as citizens of the country with the greatest civil justice system in the world should resist these so-called legal reforms, which are really nothing more than corporate welfare paid for by our weakest citizens: the injured and disabled.

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

I write this from Michigan, where legislation prevents its citizens from pursuing litigation for injuries, disabilities or death caused by any drug that has been FDA approved. In other words, if a drug is good enough for the FDA, it is good enough for the Michigan legislature and good enough for its citizens. If the drug has been FDA approved, regardless of how dangerous it is or what has been discovered about it after approval, a Michigan citizen who has been seriously injured by the drug cannot pursue its manufacturer for damages.

As a former trial lawyer, naturally, I vehemently disagree with this legislation. I was surprised to find that I have an unlikely ally, doctors! The New England Journal of Medicine has filed a friend of the court brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Wyeth v. Levine, stating that the "Food and Drug Administration is in no position to guarantee drug safety" and that "lawsuits can serve as a vital deterrent and protect consumers if drug companies don't disclose risks". You read that correctly folks; lawyers didn't say it, doctors did.

"The FDA alone simply lacks the ability to serve as the sole guarantor of drug safety. Without the discoveries dredged up by plaintiffs' lawyers through liability litigation, the FDA would be stripped of an essential source of information that the agency has consistently relied on when making its regulatory decisions, and the American public would be deprived of a vital deterrent against pharmaceutical company misconduct," the doctors argued in their brief.

47 state attorneys general and two former FDA commissioners — David Kessler and Donald Kennedy support the Journal's position. We will watch closely to see what the Supreme Court does with this case, but the support of the Journal and the doctors is certainly welcomed and appreciated.

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

I saw an interesting article in the New York Times about a study that confirms something that I have believed to be true for as long as I have been a plaintiff trial lawyer. The study found that plaintiffs, on average, receive far better litigation results by settling their case than they do by going to trial. The study was co-authored by Randall L. Kiser a principal analyst at DecisionSet, a litigation consulting firm. Kiser said: “The lesson for plaintiffs is, in the vast majority of cases, they are perceiving the defendant’s offer to be half a loaf when in fact it is an entire loaf or more.”

While many people believe that the system is broken and in need of reform (see previous post) and runaway juries are often giving out seven figure verdicts, the truth is, confirmed by the soon to be released study, that most plaintiffs get less money at trial than the settlement offer that was made prior to trial (so much for the "frivolousness" of litigation!) The study found that Defendants made the wrong decision to proceed to trial only 24% of the time, while plaintiff were wrong in 61% of the cases. In only 15% of the cases, both sides were correct in choosing a trial; in those case, defendant paid less than the amount plaintiff demanded, but plaintiff got more than defendant offered. The study, to be published in the September issue of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, was based on approximately 2000 cases over a three year period from 2002 to 2005.

The majority of cases settle; according to Kiser, some 80 to 92% of them, which runs contrary to conventional lay thinking that so-called greedy trial lawyers try cases in an effort to collect higher contingency fees. The truth is that the defendants, almost always, choose which cases are going to trial by the case appropriate or inappropriate offers they make. The study makes it quite clear that plaintiff lawyers do not have a significant financial interest in trying cases as opposed to settling them.

It is interesting to note that the study found that more-frequent plaintiff attorney mistakes in choosing trial over settlement were much less costly than less-frequent defense attorney mistakes. The average cost to plaintiff of an incorrect decision to go to trial was approximately $43,000; for defendants, it was a whopping $1.1 Million.

The authors of the study suggest that lawyers may not be properly explaining the odds to their clients. With all due respect to their opinion (this was not part of their official findings), my 30 plus years of experience tells me that the more significant issue is that some clients don't listen to their experienced lawyers and force trials when they should settle. Those that ignore the advice of counsel often learn a hard lessen in the courtroom. The study also found that poor decisions choosing trial over settlement have risen over the last 40 years.

Trying to predict results or handicapping the outcome of litigation is very difficult; I know, I do it for a living. The very essence of a litigation funding professional like me, especially in my fiduciary capacity to investors, is to attempt to predict the litigation outcome. If I choose well, my legal finance company and its investors make a profit; if I choose poorly or some intervening event causes the litigation to fail, our lawsuit financing dollars are forfeited. Legal funding is an extremely risky business. Obviously, for the lawsuit finance professional, a value-appropriate settlement is preferred over a risky trial. This is a key reason why an ethical pre-settlement funding company will, by contract, relinquish any control in the litigation it funds.

I found it quite interesting that an economist and co-author of the study indicated that the study's finding were consistent with prior research on human behavior and risk response. Martin A. Asher said that people are much less willing to risk expected gain and much more willing to risk that which they may lose. “If you approach [a group] and say, I’ll either write you a check for $200, or we can flip a coin and I will pay you nothing or $500, most students will take the $200 rather than risk getting nothing", says Mr. Asher. If, however, you reverse the situation, where group members have to write the check, they will flip the coin, risking a bigger loss in the hope that they will pay nothing; there is more willingness to gamble in that situation.

Lawsuit Financial is one injury case funding company that is willing to take a huge gamble on litigation. The experienced law suit finance company has written checks to countless accident victims with only their personal injury cases or employment cases as potential collateral for repayment. Lawsuit Financial provides legal funding to seriously injured victims of negligence, whether injuries result from a defective product, or from an Automobile Accident, Slip & Fall, Medical Mistake, or other act of negligence by another.

If you have a pending personal injury case and require lawsuit funding visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com or call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your case funding situation. The call to Lawsuit Financial is absolutely free; the advice is priceless.

As readers of this blog know, I often write about how lawsuit financing from Lawsuit Financial would assist personal injury plaintiffs in pursuit of their litigation. It is my strong opinion that law suit funding is a vital strategic tool in an attorney's fight for justice in the courtroom and in the conference room. A desperate, hungry, plaintiff will not help to facilitate the best possible litigation result.

Once in a great while, though, I talk about something else, and this is one of those times. Today, as I was perusing news with a 'legal slant', I came upon an article in the SW Iowa News. Apparently, a longtime Nebraska State Senator by the name of Ernie Chambers (an atheist), filed a motion in Douglas County (Nebraska) District Court asking the judge to take judicial notice of God .

Readers of this blog might think I have taken leave of my senses in reporting this here. After all, I have been a strong supporter of the average citizen's right to pursue justice in court. I have supported the rights of the "little guy" and I have indicated that legal funding assists all of you "Davids" in beating the "Goliath" insurance companies. Although the case smacks of being frivolous, it is the point Chambers is trying to make that caught my attention and should be of interest to anyone who supports pro-justice causes. Chambers' purpose was to call attention to the question of whether certain lawsuits should be prohibited. He is mocking and attacking the essence of what has become known as "tort reform". Apparently, he decided to proceed with this unusual motion after the Nebraska legislature tried (more than once) to pass limits on what they call "frivolous lawsuits".

"Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts,'' he said. "My point is that anyone can sue anyone else, even God,'' said Chambers, in explaining his cause of action. "If I had just stood here and said, 'The courts should be open to everybody,' then you would all have yawned. This lawsuit grabbed attention".

I couldn't have said it better myself. Let me repeat my favorite quote in the article: "Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts". Amen, brother; may God be with you!

The right lawsuit financial services company can make a huge difference in the bottom line of your client’s case. Lawsuit Financial Corporation is your legal funding industry expert. Call us, toll free, 24 hours a day, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your case funding situation. Or, contact us by visiting our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Postscript: Here is what KETV News, in Omaha, had to say with some video from Mr. Chambers:

http://www.ketv.com/newsarchive/17099764/detail.html#

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

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

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

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

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

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

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