Alabama Personal Injury Blog - injuries

Alabama Workers Compensation - Disadvantaged Employees

Jon Lewis — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:28:21 GMT

We are in the process of representing an individual who was seriously injured on the job. He has had two back surgeries, and he is 72 years of age. He has been deemed 100% disabled, and we are trying to resolve his case. There is no question about whether or not his employer is responsible for compensating him under the Alabama Workers Compensation Act, so what is the issue?

Well, in Alabama, the employer (really, the employer's insurance company) can try to settle the case or force you to go to court to prove your case. If the insurance company settles your case, they typically pay the settlement in a lump sum amount. If you try the case to a verdict and win, the insurance company can choose to pay the employee weekly or in a lump sum. Usually, they will choose the weekly option because they will benefit if the employee dies before the payout is complete.

What about our situation? What would our client be entitled to in a lump sum? Approximately $170,000.00. What has the insurance company offered? $85,000.00. Why? Money. It is all about the bottom line for the insurance company, and they understand that we, as the employee's attorney, have no leverage to force them to do otherwise.

Why would our client accept a lump sum for less than $170,000? Several reasons. First, he can get a lump sum and know what he has. Second, if he were to die, he knows that his wife will receive something; whereas, if he died during the weekly payments, the payments stop immediately. Third, he doesn't have to try his case to a judge (you cannot get a jury in a workers comp case) and risk the judge thinking he's less than 100% disabled which would dramatically reduce his compensation. Finally, he can incorporate language for Social Security Disability which minimizes the effect on any set off Social Security would get if he received weekly payments.

Why wouldn't the insurance company pay the full value of the lump sum? They have no incentive. They have nothing to lose. If they don't pay it, what happens? They hire an attorney to defend the case. If the attorney wins or gets less than 100% disability, they don't have to pay as much. If they lose the case, they only have to pay the weekly benefits, and if our client were to die, they win. The only way the insurance company loses is if our client lives beyond his life expectancy, and the insurance company has to keep paying his weekly benefits. That is how the insurance company evaluates the claim: what is the likelihood that our client will live beyond his life expectancy. In their mind, our client is just another number, not a human being who is going to have a difficult time supporting his family because of his injury.

There should be some consequence to the insurance company and employer if they force the employee to try the case to a verdict, and the employee wins - at least in a 100% disability case. These types of cases are serious, and the individuals who have been injured have very little recourse and will have a difficult time the rest of their lives. This is their only chance at compensation, and the insurance companies hold their feet to the fire. It is time the employees could fight back and not be forced into settlement situations.

What do you think?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Four-Wheelers Are Not Toys

Pete Mackey — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:51:53 GMT

Like many folks in the Mobile area, I went to the beach on Labor Day. On my way home, I saw two young boys coming the other way on a four wheeler in the grass next to the road. This road is a four lane, divided highway with a 50 MPH speed limit. The driver appeared to be no older than 12 or 13 and his passenger was considerably younger. Neither wore a helmet.

As a lawyer who represents claimants in injury cases, my first thought was all of the bad things that this scenario conjured up. As a parent whose children are grown, I wanted to turn around and drive them home. I could not get the thought of them out of my mind. When I got home, I went straight to Google.

Stories like this one popped up repeatedly. An entry on all terrain vehicles in Wikipedia provided some greusome statistics on overall use:

Statistics released by CPSC show that in 2005, there were an estimated 136,700 injuries associated with ATVs treated in US hospital emergency rooms. In 2004, the latest year for which estimates are available, 767 people died in ATV-associated incidents. According to statistics released by CPSC, the risk of injury in 2005 was 171.5 injuries per 10,000 four-wheel ATVs in use. The risk of death in 2004 was 1.1 deaths per 10,000 four-wheelers in use. Focus has shifted to machine size balanced with the usage of ATVs categorized by age ranges and engine displacements—in line with the consent decrees. ATVs are mandated to bear a label from the manufacturer stating that the use of machines greater than 90 cc by riders under the age of 12 is prohibited. This is a 'manufacturer/CPSC recommendation' and not necessarily state law.

The numbers regarding accidents involving children were even grimmer but the industry is more concerned with profits:

According to The New York Times on September 2, 2007, the Consumer Product Safety Commission met in March 2005 to discuss the dangers of ATVs. Data from 2004 showed 44,000 children under 16 injured while riding ATVs, 150 of them fatally. Says the Times, "National associations of pediatricians, consumer advocates and emergency room doctors were urging the commission to ban sales of adult-size ATVs for use by children under 16 because the machines were too big and fast for young drivers to control. But when it came time to consider such a step, a staff member whose name did not appear on the meeting agenda unexpectedly weighed in." That staff member was John Gibson Mullan, "the agency’s director of compliance and a former lawyer for the A.T.V. industry" - the Times bases the claim on a recording of the meeting. Mullan reportedly said that the existing system of warnings and voluntary compliance was working. The agency's hazard statistician, Robin Ingle, was not allowed to present a rebuttal. She told the Times in an interview, "He had hijacked the presentation. He was distorting the numbers in order to benefit industry and defeat the petition. It was almost like he still worked for them, not us." CPSC reports of ATV deaths and injuries show an increase in the raw numbers of deaths and injuries that is statistically significant. The rate of deaths and injuries, which takes into account the fact that the number of ATVs in use has risen over the last ten years, has been shown to have experienced no statistically significant change.

This is not acceptable. We need to do something. If you have a four-wheeler at the house, understand that it may be like a loaded gun around a child. Apread the word - these machines can be killers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

Safety - Protect Yourself and Your Family

Jon Lewis — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:27:45 GMT

Our society values safety and health, and really, what is more important? Safety is defined on Wikipedia as:

Safety is the state of being "safe" (from French sauf), the condition of being protected against physical, social, spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types or consequences of failure, damage, error, accidents, harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable. This can take the form of being protected from the event or from exposure to something that causes health or economical losses. It can include protection of people or of possessions.

That is a broad definition. We see our societal values in health and safety in the recent discussions over national healthcare reform. We all believe our citizens deserve the best healthcare, and no one should be left behind.

Our law firm is usually hired after someone has already been injured. In those instances, had safety precautions been taken BEFORE the injury occurred, it is likely that the injury would have been prevented. Unfortunately, that is not the case once we get involved.

For this reason, our firm and InjuryBoard promote safe practices. We try to educate the public on how to be safe. Whether you are driving a car or working in a plant, there are steps you can take to be safe and lessen the risk of injury and harm.

In this regard, we have developed a Safety Shop where you can search for items to help you and your family stay safe. The domain is www.USSafetyShop.com. We plan on developing this site further to include many more products which you can review and purchase to help prevent harm to you and your family. Let us know what you think, and on this Labor Day holiday, BE SAFE!!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Noose that Hangs a Man Shows No Damage Either

Jon Lewis — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:30:07 GMT

The insurance industry has been promoting a fallacy since the early 1990's. That fallacy is that people in cars cannot be injured if the damage to the car is minor. This could not be further from the truth; however, jurors and society in general have bought into this concept. People think anyone who brings a claim for injury after minor damage to the vehicle is a crook.

As the title of this blog indicates, the rope used to hang a man will show little, if any, damage, but it will kill the man. With respect to vehicles, they are built better these days and built to withstand crashes of more significance than they could withstand years ago. Think about the materials which are now used in bumpers and other components of cars and SUV's. Simply because the car or SUV shows little damage does not mean the impact of the collision was insignificant or that the person inside the vehicle was not jolted one way or another to cause an injury.

Additionally, you have more towing packages and other components which resist damage but still receive the force of the impact. The seats in the vehicle have an effect on the collision and injury as well. See this report on It is not enough to say that the car or SUV suffered little damage. Shouldn't we focus on the individual who is injured and not the metal?

My grandfather used to always say, "Don't ever worry about what money can replace." Unfortunately, insurance companies want you to focus on the opposite. Since there is little damage to the vehicle, this person isn't hurt, and we shouldn't have to pay. This is horrible logic. We should focus on the person and the doctor and not assume the victim is lying. We should presume the person is telling the truth because if they are, they are the ones who lose in the end and are left with the injury.

If you want to read more about this issue, here is a very good article with supporting cites: Low Impact Injury Accidents: Are they Real?

Have you been in a low impact accident? Were you injured? Do you know someone who was? Can you dispel the myth? Let's talk about it. Let's get the public aware of this problem. Not everyone is injured in a collision. Some people are involved in significant collisions and rollover crashes, and they are not injured. Some people are in minor crashes, and they are injured. That is why we need to evaluate the person, not the car.

Let us know what you think.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Don't Die in a Chrysler

Jon Lewis — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:27:27 GMT

Today, it was reported on CNN.com that Honda is issuing a recall on 440,000 vehicles. According to the article, there is a potential defect in driver-side airbags in 2001-02 Honda Accords, 2001 Civics and 2002-03 Acura TLs. Already, six injuries and one death have been reported.

So, what does this recall have to do with Chrysler?

Well, this article points out the flaw in the bankruptcy court's decision to absolve Fiat and Chrysler of any liability for injuries or deaths resulting from defective Chryslers which were bought before the bankruptcy. This would have been the case in all 440,000 Hondas which have been recalled.

Couldn't the bankruptcy court have been more thoughtful about the decision? Most times, bankruptcy courts require the debtor to purchase insurance in order to cover such liabilities. Why didn't Fiat or Chrysler purchase insurance so that the consumer doesn't suffer? Families who purchased Chryslers before the bankruptcy will suffer an undue hardship if a loved one is seriously injured or killed as a result of a defect in the car, truck or SUV. Shouldn't that cost be shifted to the new entity through insurance?

If you want more information regarding defective products, please contact our office, and we will send you a report on legal issues in Alabama regarding defective products: Recognizing and Preserving Evidence in Automotive Product Liability Cases.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Injured Employees Should Look for Third Party Liability in Work-Related Accidents

Jason Knowles — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:36:44 GMT

A worker who is injured in an on-the-job accident can file a claim for workers’ compensation benefits but typically, at least in Alabama, the recovery in that sort of claim is woefully inadequate to compensate an injured worker. Workers should therefore be aware that a third party, other than the employer, may be responsible for the worker’s injury, in which case the recovery is often greater.

When an injured worker comes to our firm, we fully investigate the cause of injury to determine if a third party was responsible for the worker’s injury. Often we discover that a defective machine, for example, was the cause of the injury. Often, injury-causing machines are defective in that that they are not properly designed to eliminate or prevent hazards or they are not equipped with proper warnings about the hazard. Sometimes a third party is liable when, for example, their employee caused the accident and resulting injuries, such as in a two vehicle crash. Many other types of negligence by third-parties may give the injured worker a cause of action.

So, workers injured on the job should be aware that they have options which may significantly aid them above and beyond the workers’ compensation laws.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jason Knowles

Death on Rails

Jon Lewis — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:59:11 GMT

Yesterday, there was a tragic incident in the Washington, D.C. Metro area.

Norfolk InjuryBoard Article, by Rick Shapiro

By now, most people have heard that two Metro area trains collided killing at least six individuals and hurting 60 more. I have followed this story with great interest because I will be riding these trains soon when I am in the D.C. area. My questions about this event have been numerous, but the first, and main question, is WHY?

View the Video Here:

NBC Chopper Video

One of the first things the investigation team will do is piece together the facts of this story. Where did they collide? What was the speed? Who was operating them? Who were the passengers? Were there any mechanical defects? Did the operators of the trains do anything wrong? Were proper procedures followed? These are questions which are asked to determine if the collision was preventable.

And why do we care if it was preventable? We want to know if we can prevent incidents like this in the future. We want to prevent death. We want to prevent injury. We don't want this to happen to us, and we don't want this to happen to our family members and friends. AND, we want to punish anyone who might have been reckless and wanton in their actions, i.e.: if one of the operators was under the influence of alcohol (I AM NOT SUGGESTING THEY WERE - JUST AN EXAMPLE).

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will handle this, but attorneys for the families will get involved too. The families have lost loved ones - maybe the bread winner of the home. Some of the injuries will be devastating, and the people will need constant care. Who will pay for all of this and take care of these individuals? Should it be our health insurance companies and money out of their own pocket, or should the people who were negligent or reckless foot the bill through their insurance carriers. I would obviously suggest the latter, but what do you think?

Most individuals don't understand that the tort system is essentially a cost shifting mechanism to assign financial responsibility to those at fault. And isn't that the way it should be?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Car Wrecks - New eCrash Reports

Jon Lewis — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:36:17 GMT

The Birmingham News reported today that the State has instituted a new eCrash system. This system allows the State Troopers to submit wreck reports electronically. According to the article, this will make the process quicker and allow victims of car wrecks and insurance companies to obtain the reports in a more timely fashion.

Anyone who has attempted to obtain accident reports in the last few years knows how long the delay has been. When the collision is significant enough, it can take months to get the report. Now, the report will be available much more quickly.

This is very important for victims of crashes. The sooner the reports can be obtained, the sooner the investigation can be completed, and the sooner the report can be sent to the insurance carrier so the matter can be resolved. When people are injured and cannot work, it is important to get quick decisions from insurance companies so that they can compensate the victim and help them move on with their lives.

For more information about Alabama automobile accidents, you may visit www.AlabamaAutoAccidents.com. Also, below is a video from the Birmingham News which illustrates the new eCrash system. See State Trooper Wesley Burgett below.

http://videos.al.com/birmingham-news/2009/06/ecrash_program.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

There Is Trouble In Your Gasoline Can

Pete Mackey — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:43:11 GMT

That gasoline can in your garage sure looks safe. You bought it from a big box store - they would not sell it unless it is safe, right? Wrong. In fact, there is a key safety component that most manufacturers fail to install and which can lead to drastic consequences. That component is a flame arrester - a small piece of wire mesh that is installed in the spout. It allows the gasoline to flow out, but blocks gas vapors in. What does this mean in the real world?

Say you are burning trash in a 55 gallon drum. After the trash has burned for a while, the fire goes out, or so you think. You pour some gas on the unburnt trash so that you can relight the fire. Several lawsuits filed around the country allege that severe burns have benn suffered in these situations - caused by the flame in the can mixing with the gas vapors in the gas can spout, causing an explosion. But it does not only happen when the can is emptied on an open flame. Ask Landon Beadore, who age 3 knocked over a gas can in his garage, leading to an explosion that left scarring over half his body. The can he knocked over lacked a flame arrester - a safety device that would have cost the manufacturer less than a dollar to make and install.

Check the gas can in your garage today. See if there is a flame arrester in the spout. If there's not - replace it with one that is so equipped. The manufacturer says that these explosions are only caused by misuse. Landon and his parents disagree. Why gamble?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

Alabama Uninsured Motorist Coverage - Unbelievable!!

Jon Lewis — Thu, 28 May 2009 08:12:00 GMT

Here is a little example of Alabama law which would probably irritate most people if they found themselves in the same situation. It involves a case decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama on May 15, 2009: Kendall v. United Services Automobile Association. The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled according to the law and found in favor of United Services Automobile Association (USAA Insurance).

In Kendall, an employee of Elmore County ran a red light and collided with Mrs. Kendall. Mrs. Kendall had substantial injuries and damages. In fact, her medical expenses exceeded $100,000. Mrs. Kendall made a claim against Elmore County and settled for the $100,000 cap which one may recover from a county in Alabama. She then proceeded to make a claim on her uninsured motorist portion of her insurance policy with USAA.

Uninsured motorist coverage protects you if the defendant does not have enough insurance or has no insurance. This was the case in Kendall because the $100,000 available from Elmore County was not enough to cover Mrs. Kendall's damages. However, the law says you must be "legally entitled to recover" from the defendant in order to recover on your uninsured motorist portion of your insurance policy. Since counties are capped at $100,000, you are not "legally entitled to recover" more than $100,000 from a county. Consequently, you cannot recover any of your uninsured motorist coverage on your insurance policy - which is what the Supreme Court said.

Does this make sense? You are paying premiums every month for uninsured/underinsured motorist protection, and yet, the insurance company is protected if the defendant is protected. This is also true if you run into a deer or a State vehicle. There are other situations as well. Does your insurance agent explain this to you? Of course not. It seems ridiculous, but it's true.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis