The Joel Bieber Firm

Call 1-800-451-6393

Archive for Auto Accident

Fault versus Responsibility

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012

Major league baseball pitcher, Bartolo Colon, was just suspended (ESPN article) for 50 games, after testing positive  for a performance-enhancing substance.  Baseball decided a couple of years ago that it was no longer going to turn a blind eye to steroids, human-growth hormone and other drugs.

When it was announced that Colon had tested positive for a banned substance, he or his agent released the following statement on his behalf, ” I apologize to the fans, to my teammates and to the Oakland A’s” (his team)

When I saw this story and the statement, I wondered why he was apologizing. For the last couple of years, there were rumors about him unfairly competing. Now, baseball has confirmed those rumors. Is he sorry that he took banned drugs/substances or is he sorry that he got caught? Was he sorry the day before he got caught.

For every lawsuit that I file, I receive an answer to the suit.  Almost always, the answer is filed by the defense attorney that has been hired by the insurance company. In that answer, they deny everything except that there was an accident. Then, on the day of trial or a couple of days before, I usually am told by the defense that  ”they are admitting liability”.

Although they admit liability, they then attack my client about injuries and treatment. Recently, I asked a defendant if he was at fault for the crash. Like clockwork, he said that he accepted responsibility for his actions. I then followed up with, “So you accept responsibility for the injuries that you caused my client?”  He hesitated, looked over at his attorney at counsel table and then blurted out, “oh no, that’s not what I meant”.

Whether it’s the real world, baseball or from a car accident, getting caught doesn’t usaully mean “I’m sorry and I’m responsible”.  I suppose that will never change.

For pic o’ day, this pup just realized that Vet doesn’t mean what he thought they were saying:

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

A Pantry of Fears

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

Daily Bread reminded me of the story of the mother who asked her 5-year-old to go to the pantry and get a can of chicken noodle soup. As he got close, he stopped and didn’t want to go in to get the soup.

“What’s wrong with you?” the mother asked. The little boy hung his head and said that he didn’t want to go into the pantry “because it’s dark in there”.

His mom assured him that it was okay. “Don’t be afraid, Jesus is in there.” The boy slowly opened the door and began to peer in. Then, without going in he shouted, “Jesus, can you hand me a can of chicken noodle soup?”

All of us call it “planning” when we look into the future. What are we going to do about meeting bills or retirement? Is President Obama driving us off a cliff or do we worry if he’s not re-elected? Rep. Michele Bachman has never had a bill or resolution passed and never chaired a committee or subcommittee. How can she be President?

Is the US Supreme Court so “pro-business” that it is eliminating personal rights and ignoring the concept of precedence. Is Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes expecting another baby and trying to take over the world with their beliefs of Scientology?

I just saw that the Virginia Governor and Attorney General are attending a policy seminar in Colorado, that is organized by two brothers (Koch) that have made their money, primarily in the Oil and Chemical business. Their beliefs revolve around eliminating government regulation and letting corporations be free to work.

When one of Kochs ran on the Libertarian Party Presidential ticketin 1980, the platform included the following: (from Wikipedia) “abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum-wage laws, corporate taxes, all price supports and subsidies for agriculture and business, and U.S. Federal agencies including the SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA, and DOE.[2][12] The ticket proposed legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide.

The wealthy have the ears of our politicians and I haven’t even included worries of flying, the ego of Lebron James, or whether your cell phone plan has enough minutes and enough bars.

I’ve gone overboard to discuss worry because one of the greatest damages in many auto accident cases is mental anguish and worry and future medical expense. Many clients ask, “What is going to happen for my care. Who is going to pay for it?” These damages are sometimes the most ridiculed by the defense.

Also, such future damages of what is out there for the future, face some cap limitations in some states. Maryland caps pain and suffering and mental anguish, at 750K. Worries of what is out there for future limitations and surgery may be the greatest damage in a case.

It’s easy to be afraid of the future. Will I have my health? Will I have a job? Will I have enough for retirement? We can feel like the little boy looking into the pantry; the uncertainty brings the most fear. It is the same worry in dealing with the future of injury.

The History of “The Serenity Prayer” (also modified and adopted by some 12 step programs) tells us that the Armed Forces adopted a prayer for soldiers and army chaplains, that was attributed to a minister named Reinhold Niebuhr. It was to help as they faced the fears and difficulties of war. A familar prayer; but also, a good reminder:

“O God and Heavenly Father, Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen”

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Attitude at the Crash Scene

Tuesday, May 31st, 2011

     Guy Kawasaki wrote in “Reality Check“ about a friend  at O’ Hare  International Airport. He was watching another passenger scream at the airline attendant.  The ticket agent was amazingly calm.

     After the tirade was over, Kawasaki’s friend got up to the counter. He asked the agent how she was able to stay so calm. “That’s easy. He’s going to Paris, but his bags are going to Sydney”.

     Last week, we settled a case that involved a head-on crash between our client and the defendant. In the case, we had not gotten retained until sometime after much of the evidence, like skid marks and grass and gravel indentations, had disappeared or been washed away.

     There had been an eyewitness to the crash, who had told the police officer that the defendant had caused the crash, by traveling into the client’s lane. The police officer had written the name and phone number of the eyewitness on a piece of paper. Unfortunately, that paper disappeared. The officer regrettably advised  that he had failed to put the witness contact information in the investigation file, and that it had somehow blown out of his car.

     Now, we were dealing with a defendant who was saying that our client came into his lane, versus our client’s testimony of the exact opposite. (a “he said”, no “”he said”)  Because of hearsay evidence restrictions, the officer would be unable to testify about the statements of the eyewitness, at the scene. 

     At the scene, the defendant was extremely belligerent to the officer. He refused to do a field sobriety test. He claimed that he was in too much distress, to do a breathalyzer test, to determine alcohol in his system.    At the crash scene, he did have enough energy to measure skid marks. It was also later determined that after the crash, he called his sister; who is a registered nurse. Posssibly, he told her that he had been drinking and, maybe she gave him some advice on what to do at the scene. At least there was some possible inference that might have let the jury consider that as a possibility.

     Ultimately, the insurance company and defense attorney apparently thought that there was enough evidence, that a jury would believe our client. In fact, at the hospital, the defendant tested with  .03 of alcohol in his system. That’s almost 1/3 less than the legal intoxication limit of .08.  It does not appear that he was drunk  at the scene, after all.

     The defendant could have done the field sobriety tests and breath/alcohol test for the officer.  Instead, he was argumentative and not cooperative.

    I believe that it all came down to the attitude of the defendant. The way he acted at the scene, was also how he seemed, throughout the case. I’ll also venture a guess that the defense attorney was glad that he did not have to represent him in front of the jury.

     Like the airline passenger story, it’s a reminder how our attitude can make a difference. In this case, it also made a difference as to who was the most credible, as the cause of the crash.

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Sue The Deer

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

     Not long ago, I receive a call from a “prospective client”. She had been driving in the evening hours and a deer darted out in front of her.  She hit the deer and caused serious damage to the car.  She wanted to know if she could sue. “Sue the deer” I asked? ”Well, I didn’t do anything wrong”, She said.

      I went on to ask whether she had exchanged insurance information with the deer and she didn’t understand why I was asking that. I guess I should have just said that we weren’t handling deer cases this month.

     I did once handle a cow case. It really was a case because the farmer that owned the cow, had responsibility to keep his cow in the pasture.  His cows had wandered before and coincidentally, the neighbors were tired of it. They were more than willing to let me know about their irritation about those ”wandering cows”.

     The issue of whether the farmer had notice, was satisfied by those potential witnesses.  The police officer must have been demonstrating his sense of humor,  because he wrote on the accident report “Cow wandering without headlights”.

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Categories : Auto Accidents
Comments (1)

A Medicare Lesson

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

     This blog topic is not a grabber. There, I violated the first rule of writing by inserting a first sentence that seems to say, “move on, nothing interesting here”.  In fact, here is the theme of no surprise: Government run Medicare needs a new  law to make it work more effectively.

     I deal with medicare in my law practice. I use the term “deal” with medicare, when in reality, it is very hard to get in touch with a Medicare representative.  I am usually trying to reimburse Medicare from client settlement proceeds, as a result of health care providers that have been paid by medicare. Really! I am trying to pay Medicare money.

     The law says that Medicare is entitled to reimbursement, when  bills relating to a car crash have previously been paid,  and my clients later receive proceeds of settlement as a result of that crash. Specifically, once Medicare makes a payment, they have a lien against the accident settlement proceeds.

      Despite the seemingly expected ease of payback, many of my client’s settlements are slowed down because I cannot get in touch with a Medicare representative or I cannot get a final lien amount. Despite that, the lien continues and can even potentially make me, as the lawyer, legally and/or ethically  responsible,  if I ignore an unknown lien amount. In addition, Medicare delay can last for months or even a year.

   This Medicare law governing reimbursements  doesn’t seem to be law that makes sense. Of course, I am told that there is a California law that says that “No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour”.  In Maryland, it is against the law to take a lion to the movies or throw a bale of hay from a second story window. I’m not making this up. Still, Medicare is a  “stranger than” to me. Why is it so hard to pay back money to the government?

     I’m not the only one that thinks there is a problem. Currently,  a bill is now pending in Congress (H.R. 4796) called the Medicare Secondary Payer Enhancement Act. No,  it’s not  lip plumper legislation.

     Representatives Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Tim Murphy (R-PA) have introduced this bill to streamline repayments.  1) Medicare would have to respond to a recovery demand letter (a request asking for a final lien amount) or risk losing entitlement to the lien;  2)Medicare would be required to develop and implement an appeals process, when there is an issue with the lien that is claimed by medicare;  3)There would be a 3 year statute of limitations for any Medicare Secondary Payer claims.

     Currently, Medicare can move at its own pace in responding. Getting a live person on the phone is quite a surprise. Many times, after chasing them for the lien, there is correspondence of a lien that does not represent an accurate amount,  that coincides with the payments from treatment and the crash. Medicare notifies at their timing, tells you the amount that they say is due and sometimes it is basically a letter that says ”you pay this or we’ll keep tacking on interest”, and they do. Even when you write to question a bill that was paid, relating to treatment that was provided before the date of the crash.

     This is not a blog on the issue of Government mandated insurance. However, if Medicare reimbursement is any prophecy of the future, then we might all be in for some hard times, to get  authorized treatment. It makes me sometimes  feel like I’m dealing with Junior, from the old “Hee Haw” Show.  He would just tell us to call “BR 549″.  

     This bill is currently endorsed by such organizations as Safeway, the American Insurance Association, the Defense Research Institute and Walmart. Hopefully, delay and uncertainty can be fixed by this and the government can even get their money quicker. How is that a bad idea?

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Categories : Auto Accidents
Comments (17)

Smiling Jurors

Monday, January 25th, 2010

This morning, I have a smile on my face because the Colts are going to the Super Bowl. I was just asked if I'm going to try to go and I said that "it's still in committee".

In jury trials, the jury is always instructed that the law says that there is no place for sympathy in the verdict. Typically, defense attorneys do all that they can to show up and remove any emotion from the case. If they can somehow figure out a way to focus on the conduct of my client, maybe the jury won't focus on the cause of the crash.

I usually hear attacks like, "well, you didn't immediately report an injury at the scene, did you?" or, "You didn't regularly attend all your doctor appointments, did you?". Their hope is that the jury will forget that the defendant ran the red light, was driving drunk or was going 20 miles over the speed limit. Instead, while still stunned by the crash, they want the jury to be asking why the client didn't immediately say, "wow my neck hurts" or "isn't it great that I have no schedule and can easily attend appointments, without real life difficulties".

One thing that concerns a defense attorney is a smiling juror. Several years ago, one defense attorney in Virginia Beach, moved to have one juror removed from the case. He had noticed that two different jurors had actually smiled at me, and he apparently assumed that they had been untruthful when saying that they didn't know me. Of course, I had smiled at them over some issue regarding the VCR not working, when playing a deposition.

Another defense attorney brought it to the Judges attention that I had been speaking to a juror and he wanted to know about the conversation and wanted the specifics placed on the record. I then advised that I had held the door for the juror and he had said "thank you".

I'm guessing that there isn't much to smile about in the world of defense lawyers. I hear that Insurance companies are constantly cutting their billable hours and many  defense lawyers complain that there is no feeling of satisfaction in what they do. Plus, I can't imagine always doubting humanity, when someone says that they were hurt.

Losing the importance of a smile is a sad loss. An old chinese proverb says that, "A man without a smiling face must not open a shop". I know how I am impacted by a smiling client. It doesn't mean that difficulties aren't weighing heavy on them. 

On Friday, one client called and was telling me about her doctor's appointments. She is going through hard times because of her pain and finances. Not having transportation as a result of the crash is causing all kinds of problems. Despite all this, she was still smiling on the phone and finished with "God Bless You". From my interaction with her, I felt like I had just received a blessing. I'm also glad that just because someone serves on a jury doesn't mean that they also have to lose their smile, either.  

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Categories : Auto Accidents
Comments Comments Off