Lawsuit Finance Blog

The parents of a young, very unfortunate boy, of Eastman, WI, have won $11.4 million in a Medical Malpractice lawsuit. The case, brilliantly pursued by attorney Jeff Goldberg, alleged negligent care by a nurse and nurse midwife during the child's birth.

The question often arises whether Lawsuit Financial can provide legal funding or lawsuit finance assistance to minors or brain damaged individuals. The short answer is, usually, no, we can't. However, in the case that is the subject of the article, money has been earmarked for the parents to assist in the care and treatment of the child. The reader should notice that the birth and alleged medical malpractice took place in 2005, three long years ago. How have the parents paid for treatment and care for the child during this long, three year process? Lawsuit funding is available to parents or guardians of adult or minor brain damage victims or minor injury victims against litigation proceeds that are earmarked for payment to the healthy, caregiving adults for care and treatment of the victim. It is extremely expensive to care for someone in this situation and to have to do it without financial assistance is almost impossible. Lawsuit Financial is pleased to offer legal financial assistance to those families struggling to provide adequate care for a disabled loved one. For more information about this "exception" to the usual "non-funding" rule in case of incapacity, please call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848).

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

Most Michigan citizens are focused on the Presidential race; I understand that. But of almost equal importance to Michigan voters is the race for a seat on the Michigan Supreme Court. The incumbent, Clifford Taylor, is the most anti-justice candidate to ever sit on the high court, voting against the rights of citizens and for huge corporations and insurance companies almost every time. His opponent, Judge Diane Marie Hathaway is a pro-justice alternative. Many citizens are unaware of the important differences between these two candidates or even how to vote the non-partisan section of the ballot. It is extremely important to vote in the race for Supreme Court and, in my opinion, you should cast your vote for Judge Hathaway.

Why? There are seven Michigan Supreme Court Justices. Currently, the anti-justice forces enjoy a 4-3 majority. Thus, a one-vote swing is crucial. Below is just a sampling of anti-citizen pro-big insurance decisions made by Cliff Taylor; it is a long and troubling list. Here are my least favorite 25:

1. Lugo v Ameritech, 464 Mich 512 (2001). The Taylor Court adopts an "open and obvious" doctrine in slip and fall cases. If you can see it and you fall on it, you lose. Forget that Michigan is a comparative negligence State. In slip and fall, only the plaintiff's negligence counts. The defendant can be negligent as hell and it doesn't count. The court actually states that no typical person could ever be seriously injured from falling in a pothole or on a sidewalk. Tell that to Dr. Atkins or Ed MacMahon!

2. Reed v Breton, 475 Mich 531 (2006). The Taylor court ignores and overrules decades of common law that allowed circumstantial evidence to prove an illegal sale of alcohol in a drunk driving case. Defendant admitted to drinking 20 beers before he killed someone while driving at 100 mph and had a .21 blood alcohol level, but the bar that served him was excused under this new standard. Is that justice?

3. Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004). This Taylor Court decision denies seriously injured auto accident victims from recovery in accidents caused by negligent and even drunk drivers.

4 & 5. Roberts v Mecosta General Hospital, 466 Mich 57 (2002), after remand 470 Mich 679 (2004) and Burton v Reed City Hospital Corp, 471 Mich 745 (2005) The Taylor Court denies court access to persons injured by medical negligence based on minor technicalities.

6. Waltz v Wyse, 469 Mich 642 (2004). The Taylor Court, suddenly, without precedent, and without warning, changes the way the wrongful death statute of limitations is calculated and denies the relatives of persons killed by medical negligence access to court.
.
7. Nawrocki v Macomb Co Road Commn, 463 Mich 143 (2000). The Taylor Court virtually eliminates governmental responsibility to maintain public roads.

8. Cameron v ACIA, 476 Mich 55( 2006). The Taylor Court, despite existing law to the contrary, shortens the statute of limitations to one year for minors and brain injured persons in auto accidents in claims seeking no-fault benefits, screwing innocent, seriously injured, kids out of needed and justified benefits.

9. Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare System, 465 Mich 53 (2001). This one is shocking even for Taylor! The Taylor Court holds that an injured person who dies, must die within the two year statute of limitations or the deceased's heirs are denied the right to sue for his loss! Can you believe this nonsense?

10. Zsigo v Hurley Medical Center, 475 Mich 215 (2006). A hospital employee rapes a
helpless patient in the hospital and the Taylor Court holds that a hospital has no responsibility to protect patients from employees who engage in intentional or criminal acts.

11. McKim v Forward Lodging Inc, 474 Mich 947 (2005). The Taylor Court decides that an EMT could not sue for injuries received while trying to assist injured patient.

12. Robinson v City of Detroit, 462 Mich 439 (2000). The Taylor Court excuses the government from any liability when it injures persons so long as they can prove that someone else was also
partly at fault.

13. MacDonald v PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001). The Taylor Court decides that businesses have no duty to protect customers from dangers until they see an immediate risk of harm to a customer and their only duty is to call the police.

14. Garg v Macomb Mental Health, 472 Mich 263 (2005). The Taylor Court overrules precedent and allows employers to escape liability for sexual harassment if it has been going on for a long time.

15. Michalski v Bar-Levav, 463 Mich 723 (2001). The Taylor Court eliminates the rights of handicapped workers to safe and reasonable working conditions.

16. Griffith v State Farm, 472 Mich 521 (2005). The Taylor Court holds that there is no requirement to pay for food for a quadriplegic who chooses to live with a guardian rather than in an institution. Do you see the distinction?

17. Haynie v State, 468 Mich 302 (2003). The Taylor Court decides that harassment of female coworkers that is gender-based, but not sexual in nature, is no longer actionable.

18. Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 473 Mich 562 (2005). This Taylor Court decision allows
Michigan no- fault insurers to avoid paying claims if it waits long enough before processing them. I guess if you screw people around for a long enough time, you win!

19. Greene v AP Products Ltd., 475 Mich 502 (2006). The Taylor Court decides that a bottle of hair oil did not require a warning that the contents could be deadly and should be kept out of the reach of children.

20. Elezovic v Ford Motor Co, 472 Mich 408 (2005). The Taylor Court decides that there was insufficient notice of workplace harassment, despite that fact that plaintiff notified two supervisors and filed numerous grievances against the alleged harasser.

21. Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749 (2004). The Taylor Court overturns a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff because, according to dissenting Michigan Supreme Court Justices, Taylor and other majority justices disliked the plaintiff's attorney.

22. Magee v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 108 (2005). The Taylor Court rules that even though the plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment, sex and age discrimination and retaliation were filed within three years of the date she resigned, the suit was too late because none of the alleged conduct occurred within the three years before filing the complaint.

23. Sington v Chrysler Corporation, 467 Mich 144 (2002).The Taylor Court consults a dictionary and overrules the existing Workers Compensation definition of "disability", overturning the statutory definition and making it far more difficult to be compensated for a work place injury.

24. Grimes v Dep't of Transportation, 475 Mich 72 (2006). A quadriplegic could not pursue justice because the Taylor Court holds that the shoulder of a roadway is not part of the "improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel" which eliminates the government's duty to maintain them free of serious defects. In Hanson v Mecosta Co Road Comm, 465 Mich 492 (2002) the Taylor Court similarly holds that the state has no liability for the defective design of a public highway.

25. Henry v Dow Chemical, 473 Mich 63 (2006). The Taylor Court decides that people negligently exposed to carcinogens are precluded from bringing claims because they didn't get cancer quickly enough (some cancers take years to manifest). Similarly, in Creech v Foot Memorial, 474 Mich 1135 (2006), the Taylor Court denies the claims of multiple
patients who had been negligently exposed to an infection while receiving medical treatment because they had not develop symptoms yet (which may take years to develop).

Scary stuff, isn't it? Want to stop the assault on civil justice? Then listen to Judge Hathaway's own words and vote on the non-partisan section of the ballot. In some cases, the voter must turn the ballot over and vote on the opposite side to vote for Judge Hathaway for Supreme Court. Please remember to do this.

"I urge everybody to vote the non-partisan part of the ballot vote because that part usually has such a huge falloff rate" (people who forget to vote the non-partisan section or don't realize there are more decisions to make on the back of the ballot) says Judge Hathaway.

Judge Hathaway has served as a Wayne County Circuit Court judge for over 15 years and presides over criminal, civil and and family law matters. She is is 54, a graduate of the Detroit College of Law and a wife and mother of five children.

Judge Hathaway is running for the Supreme Court because she believes that Justice Taylor has ignored existing law and precedent and has supported special interest groups at the expense of individual rights. She cites a University of Chicago Law School study that ranks Michigan's Supreme Court last among our 50 United States when it comes to judicial independence (defined as the ability to withstand partisan pressure).

"I want to protect individual rights and not make rulings that take them away and I want to be fair and impartial in rendering decisions," says Hathaway. Michigan Lawyer's Weekly and practicing Michigan attorneys rank Taylor worst in preparedness, efficiency and overall knowledge of law, and thoroughness of opinion.

Hathaway also criticizes a ruling that compromises our environment and limits application of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act of 1970. Hathaway believes that the intent of the law is to allow everyday citizens to act as watchdogs on environmental issues and that the Taylor Court compromised that intent with their ruling. She said she plans to restore the power to the people if elected to the Supreme Court and promises to treat every person fairly and to take their concerns seriously. "I will protect...individual rights and not make rulings that take them away. I also want to treat everyone the same, with the dignity and respect that they deserve. I want to make decisions on the merits of their case without any concern for national origin, sexual orientation, and things of that nature, and I will be a fair judge who will listen to their concerns."

Do you want a Michigan Supreme Court Justice who treats everyone fairly and protects individual rights? If so, you must vote the non-partisan section of your ballot (don't forget that this section might be on the back of the ballot) and vote for Diane Marie Hathaway for the Michigan Supreme Court. Vote "All the way for Hathaway". Thank you.

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

An interesting NY Times article indicates that medical errors in medication dispensing and dosage continue to put our youngest and most defenseless citizens at risk. The article tells the story of 6-year-old Chance Pendleton, who came out of surgery in hysterics. The attending nursed is described as "peeved" by the boy's behavior. Twenty minutes later, the boy's mother waves down another nurse who happens to be walking by. The nurse checks on the boy and notices that his IV was inserted incorrectly and he was not receiving any medication; she repairs the line and the child is better within seconds.

While this incident, apparently, caused no long term harm to young Chance Pendleton, most medical mistakes have much more serious consequences for children. Dr. Peter B. Angood, chief patient safety officer of the Joint Commission, the independent hospital accreditation agency is quoted as stating that “there’s been slow progress in the decline of these errors;” he calls on hospitals to reduce their number. His concerns do not even include the number of diagnostic and procedural errors or those that directly cause infection and/or injury. Since a child's vital organs and immune system are still in development, they are at greater risk than adults. The article notes that these errors can be caused not only by hospital or physician negligence, but in out-patient settings, as well, and by dosage errors committed by your local pharmacist. Dr. Angood opines that "there needs to be more medications specifically manufactured for the pediatric population, more standardized dosing regimens and very accurate and clear labeling and packaging of medications.” The reader may recall that a labeling mix-up caused an overdose of medication that nearly killed the newborn twins of actor Dennis Quaid and his wife.

The article encourages parents to be aggressive and speak up when they think something is not right. I agree. After all, no one knows the child better than his or her parents. The article offers tips to lower the chances of harm. I encourage you to review them, study them, copy them, remember them. You never know when or if you will find yourself in the same or similar position as that of young Chance's mom.

Lawsuit Financial is a leading provider of legal funding services for Medical Malpractice lawsuit finance and for all other general injury lawsuit funding. Call us, toll free, 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) today for a free analysis of your litigation funding issue or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. Or, if you don't have an attorney, yet, call us for a professional referral to an attorney who specializes in the area of law you need. The call is absolutely free; the advice is priceless.

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

In the aftermath of the Metrolink Train Crash tragedy, injury victims and survivors of those who were killed are searching for answers and for justice. They may also be searching for an immediate answer to financial problems that arise when one suffers a serious injury or the loss of a family supporter in a train crash accident. Victims who have lost a loved one, or were injured in the crash and cannot work, have pressing bills to pay. Lawsuit Financial is here to help you through your financial difficulties.

Lawsuit Financial is a national litigation funding company specializing in providing litigation cash advances to plaintiffs involved in pending litigation. If you have retained an attorney, Lawsuit Financial can provide financial assistance with a legal cash advance collateralized only by your pending litigation. It is not a lawsuit loan. This means that your credit standing is not an issue; there are no credit checks. If you have not yet retained an attorney, Lawsuit Financial's legal referral program can assist you in finding a specialist in train accident litigation. Call us today, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your injury case financing situation. We can provide lawsuit financing for any type of personal injury case, from Auto Accident Legal Funding, to Medical Malpractice Legal Funding and beyond. Visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. The call is free; the advice is priceless.

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

I came across an interesting item while combing the internet for legal news. I have not written much on the issue of dog bites, but a person can certainly suffer serious injuries when attacked by a dog. Such was the case on a private flight in 2006, from New York to Los Angeles, involving "Floyd", a guard dog belonging to Jennifer Lopez and a female flight attendant. Flight attendant Lisa Wilson claims that the dog pounced on her, attacked her and bit her pant leg. She twisted, fell and injured her back so badly that she required surgery.

Dog bite attacks can, and often do, result in serious injuries or wounds. As to issues of liability, different states have different laws and dog attack victims should contact an experienced personal injury attorney in her/her own state (or the state where the incident occurred). If you need a referral to an attorney in your state, please call Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 877-377-SUIT for a referral to a dog attack legal specialist. 18 states have a "one-bite rule" that protects a dog owner from liability for the first injury caused by the dog, unless an owner's negligence or leash law violation caused the attack and injury. Under the rule, the owner is liable for all subsequent attacks. 32 other states and the District of Columbia have strict liability standards; even if the dog was, previously, never vicious in any way. Michigan, Lawsuit Financial's headquarters, is one example of a strict liability state; only provocation is a defense to liability. The Michigan statute holds the owner of a dog strictly liable for dog bites to a human being that were not provoked, provided that if the incident happened upon the dog owner's property the victim was not a trespasser or there to do something unlawful or criminal.

The Michigan dog bite statute, an example of the law followed in 32 states and the District of Columbia, is found at Mich. Comp. Laws Ann., sec. 287.351. It states:

287.351 Person bitten by dog; liability of owner.
Sec. 1. (1) If a dog bites a person, without provocation while the person is on public property, or lawfully on private property, including the property of the owner of the dog, the owner of the dog shall be liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.
(2) A person is lawfully on the private property of the owner of the dog within the meaning of this act if the person is on the owner's property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or if the person is on the owner's property as an invitee or licensee of the person lawfully in possession of the property unless said person has gained lawful entry upon the premises for the purpose of an unlawful or criminal act.

Dog attacks can result in serious and disabling injuries. It is alleged in the subject lawsuit against Jennifer Lopez that Wilson suffered injuries that required surgery and have prevented her from working for over two years. Lawsuit funding is a service that was created to assist people who, through no fault of their own, suffer disabling injuries and need financial assistance to pursue the lawsuit to a just conclusion. Lengthy periods of disability will often cause financial distress and may prompt a victim to resolve their case too early for too little. Legal funding from Lawsuit Financial will provide interim financial relief and prevent the desperate plaintiff from settling early and cheap. Well-placed litigation funding can enhance the value of your case. Call Lawsuit Financial, toll free, at 877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your lawsuit financing situation. We provide Dog Bite legal funding as well as Auto Accident lawsuit funding, Premises Liability/Slip & Fall lawsuit funding, Medical Malpractice lawsuit funding, Product Liability litigation funding, Employment Discrimination or Termination legal finance, Maritime lawsuit financing, Work Place Injury lawsuit financing, Fire and Explosion legal finance, and all other general personal injury case law suit funding. Visit Lawsuit Financial on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We will do everything in our power to assist you with your case funding situation.

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

Lawsuit Financial is pleased to announce that what was formerly known as House Bill 248 has been passed by both the House and the Senate in Ohio and was signed by Governor Strickland in May 2008. This bill, at long last, makes lawsuit funding available to the injured and disabled citizens of Ohio who, through no fault of their own, are struggling to make ends meet because of their injuries or disabilities.

Key features of the new law are as follows:

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).

This well-reasoned legislation is certainly a welcome change in Ohio law. Seriously injured or disabled Ohio citizens can now participate in a non-recourse funding service that provides needed financial assistance for litigants who have little opportunity to qualify for traditional loan products. The legislation protects consumers by providing guidelines for legal funding companies to follow when providing financial relief for plaintiffs in need; it provides the injured or disabled consumer with the vital option to use litigation funding when necessary to help pay necessary bills and expenses.

So, Ohio Citizens and Ohio trial lawyers, call us, let us be the first to introduce you to law suit funding. Let Lawsuit Financial live up to its reputation of providing in the best service in the legal finance industry. We are here to assist you in your time of need; we provide toll free service at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) and absolutely free advice over the phone or on the world wide web. Citizens of Ohio (and all other US citizens): Lawsuit Financial can assist you with a non-recourse cash advance, collateralized only by your pending lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successful we are repaid our case invested principal and risk adjusted profit out of case proceeds. If the case fails, we lose our money. If the case resolves at significantly less than predicted case value, we provide an appropriate compromise. The goal of lawsuit financing is to get the litigant through the litigation, without having pressing bills and expenses effect the value of their case. Someone desperate for money will, almost always, settle his/her case for less than appropriate value. Strategic lawsuit financing will often prevent this from happening and will, in this scenario, pay for itself with increased case proceeds.

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.

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

Lawsuit Financial is pleased to announce the publication of the article Seven Considerations When Your Client Needs Cash "Now" appearing in the August edition of Plaintiff Magazine . This informative and thoughtful article about strategic and appropriate uses of legal funding was written by Lawsuit Financial's own CEO, trial lawyer and legal finance specialist,Mark M. Bello.

Entering into a law suit funding transaction is serious business. Since the typical legal funding transaction is non-recourse (contingent upon recovery in the lawsuit that litigation funding is sought against), the legal advance is free is you lose your case. If you win the case, however, you are giving up a portion of your proceeds in exchange for cash now. Obviously, the portion you are "selling" is potentially larger than the amount of money you are receiving from the legal finance company. The lawsuit financing company is investing in the possibility that your litigation will do well. If it does, the legal financial company makes a profit; if it doesn't, the lawsuit funding company could lose all or a portion of its case funding investment.

Since this is a serious transaction, it should not be entered into casually. An attorney should be advising a client during the underwriting process and the litigation funding professional should be very experienced in evaluating and placing this type of transaction. There are many different companies out there that call themselves legal funding, litigation funding, lawsuit financing, lawsuit finance, lawsuit funding or some version of these names for our industry. Be very careful that you deal with a company whose principals have extensive legal and legal funding experience. Lawsuit Financial, for example, is operated by one of the most experienced legal finance specialists in the industry. Mark M. Bello has 31 years experience as a trial lawyer and 10 years as an underwriter and manager of litigation finance transactions. It is difficult to find anyone else in this business with that level of experience. Call Mark, talk to him or his talented and experienced staff. Get the best advice in the lawsuit financing industry and proceed with the confidence that Lawsuit Financial stands ready, willing and able to assist you through a difficult time in your life. Following the "seven considerations" should help you in making a decision as to whether legal funding is right for you and your situation.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides, streamline processed, 24 hour, capped (and potentially negotiated) personal injury litigation funding including, but not limited to Auto Accident cases, Premises Liability cases, Medical Malpractice cases and many other types of personal injury cases. The call to 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) is absolutely free and totally confidential. The advice is priceless.

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

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

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

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

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookmark:

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

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

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

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

Shortly before we introduced this lawsuit financing blog, Lawsuit Financial Corporation issued a press release announcing a new, complimentary consulting service for plaintiffs and trial lawyers to assist them in better understanding the products and services offered by Lawsuit Financial Corporation and other legal funding companies. As the legal finance industry experts, we feel it is our responsibility to offer this free education about a service that is often misused and misunderstood. Since the press release preceded the blog, we thought it would be a good idea to remind our readers of the availability of this valuable service.

It is also very important to understand the differences between the various companies who provide lawsuit financing services. Almost all of us provide non-recourse lawsuit funding to plaintiffs and attorneys; this means that repayment is contingent upon the litigation's outcome. If the case fails; so does the legal advance. Simply stated, the money is free if you lose.It follows that the money is rather expensive if the case is successful. However, in addition to program expense, there are many different methods of providing legal finance services; some companies are very difficult to do business with, are rather inflexible, and, over time, can be cost prohibitive.

This is why we are offering this complimentary consulting service. It is very important that the plaintiff (and the attorney) understand the following key elements of the lawsuit funding "deal" being offered:

1. potential cost of litigation funding

2. the administrative fees, if any, being charged

3. how "interest" or "profit" is being calculated and/or assessed

4. whether case value is sufficient to justify the amount of lawsuit finance principal being sought and expected profit being charged.

It will be very difficult to settle an over-encumbered case, and whether the legal finance company you are speaking to will cap its rates or compromise if the results are not optimal is of vital importance to you, your client and the case. Lawsuit Financial Corporation will review and evaluate your proposed legal finance agreement at no charge. We will do this for you and your client whether you are looking to retain our company's services or the services of a competitor. Obviously, we feel that the educated consumer is our best client, and, in this instance, "educated" means a detailed review and explanation of the differences between companies under consideration, with careful attention to pricing, settlement, and, above all, customer service policies. To take advantage of this free service, contact us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com or call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848). The call is free and the advice is priceless.

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark:

Here is the last installment of our seven "Things to Consider When Your Client Seeks Lawsuit Funding". Experience is a vital part of the litigation and litigation funding process. There are many different legal finance companies to choose from. You must ask the right questions to assure that you are getting the lawsuit financial expert you deserve. So...the final question of our series is:

7. Does the legal finance company have the experience necessary to appropriately assist you and your client through the legal funding process?

The lawsuit finance industry has experienced explosive growth over the past few years. There are now, literally, hundreds of companies that call themselves “lawsuit funding”, “litigation funding”, “legal finance”, “lawsuit finance” companies or some variation of those word combinations. Thus, you will encounter significant differences in legal funding and legal experience that the principal brings to the lawsuit finance marketplace.

It is strongly recommended that you ask questions of the lawsuit financial company you are about to engage. How long has it been in business? Does it specialize in legal funding? (Is this the only thing it does?) Is the company a broker or a principal? Is the company operated by financial people or by lawyers? (Is the “lawyer” is an experienced veteran and an owner and not just a figurehead?) What experience has the lawsuit funding company had in funding transactions, settling transactions, compromising transactions and/or representing plaintiffs in pending litigation? What strategies does the company representative recommend for your client when pursuing a litigation funding transaction?

An experienced legal finance company and company representative can be a substantial asset, not only to providing case funding for your client, but, to the appropriate case resolution, as well. Hopefully, this blog series has been of assistance to those of you who find yourselves being introduced to the legal funding process by your client and/or a company that your client has discovered through an advertisement or the Internet. The seven criteria are not exhaustive, but are certainly instructive in choosing an appropriate lawsuit finance company. Above all, satisfy yourself that the company has the credentialed experience to guide you and your client through difficult litigation, a sometimes confusing financial process, and, most importantly to the client, through difficult financial times. 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.

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

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Tip of the Day

Bookmark: