Iowa Personal Injury Blog

In Ohio A "Financially Responsible" Person Can Kill Someone For Just $12,500

Steve Lombardi — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:01:00 GMT

In Champaign County, Ohio, a woman was standing by her mailbox on Wolcott Road, near St. Paris, when a runaway trailer struck the 46 year old woman sending her to Miami Valley Hospital in critical condition, according to the Dayton Daily online news source.

Paula Lowry was hit Wednesday, September 23rd around 6pm. The flat bed trailer was being pulled by an eastbound car driven by Kevin Fisher, age 35 from Tipp City. Fisher was not hurt. Investigation is underway to determine the cause of the trailer coming loose.

We’ve covered trailer safety before on October 16, 2009. Trailer towing safety chains are not optional | Lombardi Law Firm. But today I want to cover this accident for a different reason.

Ohio is a miserable state to get in a car accident.

Presently I have a client who died in Ohio from getting t-boned at an intersection collision; she died. The financial minimum limit one has to carry for car accidents in Ohio is a paltry $12,500.00 per person. Can you believe that? You can kill a person and only have to pay the dead person’s estate or her parents $12,500.

And here is an aspect of this case that makes it even worse. USAA claims the $12,500 underinsurance coverage on the client’s auto policy isn’t owed to her parents. They claim to have a provision in the policy that gives them a credit against anything paid. So take the $12,500 being paid by the other driver’s auto liability carrier and it isn’t more than the $12,500 UDM coverage she had, so they say we owe you nothing.

Ohio State Minimum Coverage Requirements for Automobile Insurance

Say what USAA? That an interesting position to say the least. It’s interesting because USAA sold her insurance she could never collect. Here follow the logic. If in Ohio the minimum limits are mandatory then any insured driver will have $12,500 in coverage. If they don’t have insurance then they are uninsured and not underinsured. So any underinsured driver has to have at the very least the same amount of the UDM coverage; meaning the credit wipes it out. Wow selling insurance you can’t collect on. You’d think Ohio’s Department of Insurance would have figured this one out. Makes me wonder how much the Ohio politicians received by way of campaign contributions to pass this law. Gee Mary Jo Hudson what are you directing in Ohio?

DO WE REALLY NEED FEWER LAWYERS IN THE LEGISLATURE? OR MORE LAWYERS?

There are parts to tort reform that I will never understand. And this is one. Wake up folks the insurance industry in this country is robbing you blind. This quote is from the Ohio Department of Insurance website.

How would we fix the Ohio minimum limits?

Before you can fix the minimum limits requirement the legislators in Ohio need to understand the answer to the first question Ohio’s insurance director posed.

What is Financial Responsibility?

In Ohio, it is illegal to drive any motor vehicle without insurance or other proof of financial responsibility (FR). It is also illegal for any motor vehicle owner to allow anyone else to drive the owner's vehicle without FR proof. To comply with the FR requirements, individuals must maintain insurance or get a bond. Both types of coverage are described below.

If I obtain insurance, what is required?

Ohio law requires the following for insurance coverage:

If a person purchases automobile insurance, the state requires the person to purchase Bodily Injury Liability Coverage as well as Property Damage Liability Coverage.

A motor vehicle liability insurance policy. Insurance cards are issued by an insurer to the policyholder for each motor vehicle insured under a motor vehicle liability insurance policy;

A certificate of proof of financial responsibility on a form prescribed by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV).

That’s enough for today, but come back tomorrow to read The Verdict blawg at Lombardi Law Firm where we will discuss other car-truck-semi-motorcycle accidents in Iowa. And as always if you are in an accident and need legal services we encourage you to call us sooner, rather than later.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Coming Soon, Sperm Auction Commercials on “The View”

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:01:00 GMT

Most everyone fears Osama Bin Laden, but in my view what is more destructive to America are Americans that line up asking for a participation trophy. They are the ones asking for something just for showing up. Previously I wrote about a social security case involving an application for death benefits for a child who was conceived by artificial insemination after the father had passed. The child hadn’t ever been dependent on the father because he died almost two years prior to the child being born. The mother using frozen sperm took it upon herself to be artificially inseminated and then following the child’s birth applied for social security death benefits. That’s bothersome to me and I believe Patti Beeler is way off target with the example she sets.

"It was, in my view, the right decision," said Patti Beeler. "We're the first in Iowa, but we won't be the last. You either deal with it now, or a year or 10 years later when there are more cases."

When did being first to make the wrong decision ever justify the act? Winning doesn't justify the act.

Does in vitro fertilization make social security benefits simply an investment decision for widows?

Let’s look at the facts. The Little Miss Sunshine is only 6-years old. Her biological father was 37 when he died on May 4, 2001, almost two years before Little Miss was born; now the living parent is in line to receive his social security benefits, albeit in the child's name. The child was born in April 2003. She was conceived not in the traditional way, but by in vitro fertilization using frozen sperm from the late husband who died from leukemia. The child was never dependent upon the biological father and while alive he never paid for any of the costs to support her. Of course he couldn’t because he was dead almost 2 years before she was born. Fact of the matter is Little Miss Sunshine will never meet her father. But they are now in line to receive a monthly check from the taxpayers for what can only be described as a significant amount.

“The benefit means that more than $150,000 could be tucked away for the college education of Brynn Beeler.”

I suspect most taxpayers will react as I did. Say what? Say that again! Are you kidding me? Where does this end? And what is the example it sets? We taxpayers are forking over how much in social security benefits for the cost of an in vitro procedure? Isn’t this a self-inflicted wound? I read where in vitro can be done for $10,000 to $15,000 and insurance might even cover the costs. Let the head scratching begin. Is in vitro fertilization becoming an investment decision leading the way to a stream of non-taxable income at the expense of the aging taxpayers?

This isn’t the first time I’ve written about this and similar cases. I last wrote about this using TLC's Jon & Kate Plus 8 situation to demonstrate how live men are quickly becoming obsolete. And this decision by the Social Security Administrative Judge just proved my point. You don’t need a living man anymore. You just need his frozen sperm.

Kate plus 8 means no date. | InjuryBoard Des Moines ... The widow then filed for social security death (survivor) benefits; even though she got pregnant knowing the father was already dead and knowing the child ... 101k

....

But if you’re a thinking person this isn’t the end of the story; it’s just the beginning, because many women want to have it all. Kind of like Kate plus 8 meant no dates for Jon. Kate had wanted a whole brood and a career; and then the photographers taking pictures of her with the flat stomach and the bikini on the beach, along with the book signings, the production meetings, the photo shoots with People magazine and … oh yeah an accessory husband. We can’t forget about the husband, now can we? What’s his name? Oh yeah Kate, it’s Jon.

Career woman can be worse than men ever acted. And what about that widow seeking benefits from our Social Security Administration fund?

The Smaller Question: Should the widow get the bennies or not?

Answer: Whether in your mind she does or don’t you should know the Social Security Administration said no we still need men. The government says Brynn is not eligible for the benefits, based upon an interpretation of a 150-year-old Iowa law written long before technology was available to allow the preservation of spermatic material beyond a person's life time. The law is a remarkable thing. Just consider for a moment, that this law was written long before science had begun to make men unnecessary. Keep in mind if they can freeze enough sperm they don’t need the rest of us.

Updated Answer: The judge ruled live men aren’t necessary to get the dough.

Girl entitled to dead dad's benefits, judge rules, Des Moines Register, By JASON CLAYWORTH, December 2, 2009.

Now we are back to the larger question that in The View of some is neatly stored frozen and hiding inside some test tube. Like Jon, live men aren’t a necessary accessory anymore. All you need is some frozen sperm from the sperm bank.

Until recently I hadn’t watched The Matrix but perhaps the producers and directors were trying to tell us men something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtqU57sR0B8

THE LARGER QUESTION STILL LOOMS, BUT THIS TIME FOR MEN

So here is the question for the taxpayers but especially for you men out there. Should we just give it and our Social Security benefits away or should we get a return on it? Should we create our own Wall Street style sperm bank where we auction sperm to the highest bidder? We might as well get something now for our investment in earned wages and the building up of Social Security benefits which we will never see a penny of.

Perhaps Jon Gosselin, sitting on the couch looking glum with shoulders slumped down trying to find a life outside of being a reality TV personality is the example of the way we feel about no longer being needed. Dejected is the only word I could think of to describe his appearance. Not so for the incubator. She’s upbeat and still in the sperm dollars. Jon is a symbol of where men in general are heading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuWkig8da74

And for all you Jon’s out there, do us all a favor; please assure the taxpayers you didn’t freeze any sperm! If you did my advice to you is to sue to take control of it. Maybe the Attorney Generals can sue in a class[less] action. Can you imagine Kate pregnant again with Jon being the sperm donor? First you’ll be paying child support and then all she has to do is wait for you to die and the taxpayers hand over a monthly check for Kate Plus 16 or 32 or 64 or whatever her Social-Security Lotto Obit Benefits number might be. Do you remember that other woman from out west who was artificially inseminated, had a multiple litter of kids and was said to be collecting social security benefits? Oh our memories are short. Forget about tort reform and get focused on in vitro fertilization reform. Forget hating lawyers for just a second and get focused on what the IVF docs are doing to the social security fund. The women taking advantage of IVF simply load the gun and the taxpayers get to take the bullet.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE TAXPAYERS?

We taxpayers need to take control of our investment called Social Security before the day they tell us it’s bankrupt and needs another 700 billion dollar bailout and there are only the Generation X-Y and Z's who will never be able to pay for it. What the heck, if we’re going to hand out sperm lotto tickets we might as well auction off the sperm and get something for it now. How much might women pay for sperm lotto tickets that will cash flow to the tune of $150,000 in 18-years? The present day value has to be a considerably better investment than the return of the stock market. Experience tells me Wall Street will help us package the investment like mortgage backed securities and securitize it. I can see the IPO now, Sperm Tube Unit Donors goes pubic; oops I meant public. The stock symbol will be STUD. Another option is Social-Security Lotto Obituary Benefits, Inc. stock symbol, SLOB.

Kate Plus 8 Still Means No Date – No Kate we still don’t feel sorry for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSsbkQ_GOT8

Does she look hurt? Did I miss it? How do guys get in the same category as shoes and handbags? Guys, in my View we’re quickly becoming obsolete… onward we march.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Osceola Passenger's Claims Aren't Diminished by "Missing the Curve"

Steve Lombardi — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:24:36 GMT

A one-vehicle rollover accident was reported to have been caused when the driver “missed a curve, crossed the center line and rolled in the ditch along G76 Highway west of 60yh Avenue.” I’m not sure I’d agree with the description, but I get the gist of what they are trying to say. Really you can't "miss a curve" unless of course you've fallen asleep or passed out. What a driver does is fail to negotiate the curve. So is that what happened? You be the judge. Here is the report.

Both the driver and the passenger, Elizabeth Anne Hanscom, 23 from Osceola were seriously injured and taken to Iowa Methodist Medical Center. If the passenger seeks compensation from the driver's insurance company will it be enough that the driver says he missed the curve? Not likely, he’s probably still negligent or at fault for failing to drive at a reasonable and proper speed, failing to drive using due care and failing to drive while keeping a proper lookout.

Today we have snow on the ground and it's very likely the roads are slippery. Ask yourself if that fact alone should excuse a driver who "misses the curve". It can't because as soon as you drive out of the garage the driver can see the roads will have snow on them. Meaning the driver is already on notice of the slick condition that later causes him or her to "miss the curve". What should drivers do when they are aware of slick roads? How about slowing down, keeping a sharper lookout and leaving extra room when following other cars. In other words you drive with more caution (due care) and when it's done properly the driver won't "miss the curve". So “saying I just missed the curve” may seem like a good excuse but it’s not a legal excuse. In this instance the passenger still has the right to file a claim against the driver.

That’s enough for today, but come back tomorrow to read The Verdict blog/blawg at Lombardi Law Firm where we will discuss other car-truck-semi-motorcycle accidents in Iowa. And as always if you are in an accident and need legal services we encourage you to call us sooner, rather than later. (515-222-1110 or 1-800-383-0331 or sdlombardi@aol.com)

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Lucky to be alive, train vs semi-truck

Steve Lombardi — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 09:01:05 GMT

A truck driver turned too tightly causing the wheels to get stuck in a culvert. Unfortunately, the truck ended up on the railroad tracks right in front of an oncoming train. The Nebraska State Patrol investigated and reported that the 63-year-old didn’t die but suffered injury including a broken leg. The man’s family informed the Ottumwa Courier his injuries were more extensive and included broken ribs and fractures to his vertebra.

In the train profession they are known as “near misses”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc7XmX1ak2A

CRST is an Iowa company that hauls steel or so says its name. Here is a not-so-near-miss where one of their trucks gets clobbered by an oncoming train.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBcHr_hhDU8

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Parents Who Discipline Teens, Would Probably Make Good Lawyers

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:01:00 GMT

How do lawyers know when you’re following too close?

Parents with teenagers often times have to ask a lot of questions to get to the bottom of "what went on"? Most parents learn the ropes by experience and common sense. The same goes for trial lawyers, judges and juries.

So how do lawyers know when the witness who was a driver in a crash was following too close? In this case someone was, or else, did someone cut the rear driver off? You be the judge.

Probably 90% of rear end collisions occur because of speed, inattention by the driver and following too close to the forward car or truck. Take a look at this accident resulting in a three-vehicle crash on I-380 in Iowa. This one took place on November 13, 2009.

In this accident we have Randy Thomas following Trudi Pillard who was following Josef Flanter. Poor Mr. Flanter, it seems his only role is he was paying attention and in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are all driving on Interstate 380 near Cedar Rapids, Iowa. They were all heading towards Cedar Rapids, as the officer has them heading northbound. The police report by Trooper J. Meggers from Post 11 notes the collision location is mile marker 30 in Linn County. Read what Trooper Meggers says about the sequence of the collisions between these three cars and ask yourself what you think happened that lead up to the collisions. While the officers description is brief there are nuggets from which you can draw several conclusion.

“REVISED REPORT - ALL 3 VEHS WERE NB ON 380 WHEN VEH 3 SLOWED FOR TRAFFIC AND WAS REAR ENDED BY VEH 2, THEN VEH 1 REAR ENDED VEH 2 INVEST PENDING.”

Here is who was involved in the collision and the corresponding numbers the officer assigned to each. You may need to re-read the trooper's description to get a handle on the sequence corresponding to the drivers named in the report.

Car 1: Randy Thomas driving a 1993 Chevrolet Blazer – he’s 47 and driving the car behind the other two.

Car 2: Trudi Pillard is driving a 2007 Chevy ADS – she’s 46 and driving the middle car.

Car 3: And Josef Flanter is driving is driving a Chevy Tahoe – he’s 65 and he’s driving the lead car.

For those of you who don’t know I-380 is a four-lane divided highway with an interstate speed limit. Like your state's divided highways cars are flying faster than the posted speed limit, driving too close to the car in front for comfort and all in a hurry to get someplace sooner rather than later. Some drivers are on cell phones, others eating a soon-to-be not so happy meal, drinking and some are even texting. They change lanes without using a turn signal; they cut drivers off and cut in front of drivers who do leave enough room between the car in front of their car-truck-semi or motorcycle, causing two cars that did have enough room between them to now be following too close. All of these distracted drivers are in some way responsible for precipitating road rage.

Back to the facts. I’m also interested in the sequence of the two or three collisions. The officer describes car 2 crashing first into the rear of 3, followed by car 1 crashing into car 2. Car 3 slowed for a car ahead of him; so you know that the driver of car 2 was in all likelihood driving too fast, following too close and perhaps not paying enough attention to what was going on in front of his car.

As you can see this is an interesting case for us to discuss because there may be two at-fault drivers and that fact alone should raise questions in your mind about what they were doing just prior to the collision. Generally speaking the driver of vehicle 2 struck vehicle 3 and then by the officer’s description vehicle 1 ran into the back of vehicle 2. We don't know if vehicle 3 suffered two collisions; meaning when 1 ran into 2 did 1 then strike 3 again? Remember the officer didn’t see the accident he pieces together his report from what people at the accident scene tell him and from what the physical evidence (mostly the car damage) looks like to him.

So we can’t just take his description as the Gospel truth; we need to make sure that the trooper’s description matches the physical evidence and what the drivers and witnesses say happened. Which brings up a good point; I wasn’t there either so I make no conclusions about exactly what did actually occurr. Lawyers are never there and if they are they aren't going to be a lawyer in the case; they instead will be a witness. But as a lawyer who for 30 years has dealt with car accidents, I’ve become accustomed to reading accident reports and getting hunches about what probably caused the collision. From there I frame my questions.

Also, don't forget I'm a parent. And as a parent who has listened to four kids tell me their teenage version of what happened, I’ve gotten better at asking questions to ferret out the truth. My kids will tell you I'd often say, "That's an interesting answer but how about if now you answer my question."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMGdMRAc_Yo

So what do you think happened? Think first, read second and third begin to verbalize what you believe is the sequence of events. Being able to verbalize your thoughts is an important part of trial work.

Assuming the officer’s description to be accurate, why do you think Trudi Pillard ran into the rear of Josef Flanter? And then ask yourself why Randy Thomas crashed into Trudi’s car. What keeps cars from colliding on the highway? And what causes cars to crash at highway speeds?

Here’s what I think and the reasons are as plain as the nose on your face; you and I see this every day. Either car 2 cut in between cars 1 and 3 or else both 1 and 2 were following too closely for the highway speeds. That means they were driving too fast for the distances they left between the front of their car and the rear of the car in front of theirs.

LEGALLY SPEAKING

As lawyers, jurors and judges the main issue to determine is fault. Who is at fault is what you the jury need to determine. Most people want to answer a different question that has nothing to do with making driver’s responsible drivers. “What is at fault?” This is a misleading question allowing the issues of responsibility to be skirted and does nothing to promote safe driving habits. Let me explain. It's not about what is at fault, it's about who is at fault.

As a client you need to think like the lawyer’s do or at least understand how we think to anticipate where the legal theories will lead your case.

So as a lawyer, my first series of questions center on whether car 2 cut into the space between 1 and 3.

Series 2 of questions work on a better understanding of how fast each car was driving.

Series 3 questions wants to know more about how long cars 1 and 2 had been traveling behind the involved cars.

Series 4 goes to what distractions, if any, were occurring in each car, with the exception of poor Mr. Flanter.

Remember the case is going to focus on did number 2 change lanes inappropriately, what were their speeds, were they following too close and distracted drivers. Distracted drivers cause accidents. Inconsiderate and aggressive drivers cause serious and deadly accidents. Inexperienced drivers do as well.

To be a good witness, client, trial lawyer, judge or juror you need to think like a parent quizzing your teenager about a car accident they were involved in. Most every teenager wants to blame it on something other than what they did or didn’t do. The weather, an unidentified car or driver, the road conditions, the sun or some inanimate object that wasn't driving their car. As parents we know this and our parental mindset has to be aware of this point of view when talking to them about fault. So with a jaundiced eye about the explanation they give, as a parent, you’re required to probe further than their first explanation. To know where to go with questions we rely on common sense and life experiences of what probably happened. In other words we have to draw a probably conclusion to know what questions to ask.

So when they say it was the car in front, common sense makes us question their speed, proper distances for speeds travelled and driver distractions.

Besides the drivers in this collision we also have several passengers who were injured and each has potential claims against all three drivers. There are four people noted on the report as having been injured, they include: Jennifer Willis, Maison Willis, Ruby Willis and the driver Trudi Pillard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEOseanUuT4

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Two die in 2-Vehicle Accident on Iowa County Road- A Failed Stop

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:01:00 GMT

Friday June 19^th, around 5 in the morning, a two car collision was caused by the driver that ran the stop sign. As a result two men were killed; according to the Des Moines Register.

Harlan Derr, age 58, was driving to Winnebago Industries in Forest City where he had worked for 25 years. Koh Tsuruta age 19 was driving a 1998 Toyota Camry with passengers, Tyler Brighton, 19, and Alexander Mosby, all from Lake Mills. Bart Winter, owner of Middlestadt Funeral Home in Lake Mills, and knew the boys said they “were headed to Clear Lake to fish when the crash occurred.”

It's reported that Tsuruta was heading southbound on R74 when he failed to stop at the intersection of County Roads B14 and R74 in northeast Hancock County. Westbound on B14, Harlan Derr was broadsided in his 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt. Derr and Brighton were killed at the scene. Tsuruta and Mosby were transported to hospitals with injuries. Iowa State Patrol said both drivers were wearing seat belts.

So I have one question, what was the driver's distraction?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fawYSt0i96E

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Tony Villegas Needs A Florida Divorce Lawyer

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:19:54 GMT

If you are a lawyer who lives in Florida and can handle a divorce case, then Tony Villegas needs you. I’m licensed as an attorney in Florida, but I don’t live there so I’m not a solution; if I were I’d step up to the plate for Tony Villegas.

Can he pay? I have no idea although I suspect the answer is yes.

Why should you do this? Because this guy Villegas needs help in his divorce from Debra Villegas who worked for a man charged in a gargantuan financial swindle. Without a lawyer, Tony, who sits in jail might get taken advantage of.

Why should you help a guy who has been charged with murder, get a fair shake in his divorce? Well because Tony just might be the wrong guy; he has been charged with first degree murder of a woman that many others could have wanted dead. There are so many other people with a better motive than Tony that it isn’t even funny. This whole story has Hollywood written all over it. But aside from your fifteen minutes of fame, how about because justice is why most of us started on this path to law school and the practice of law. And how about because honest lawyers care that the legal system works fairly for those who find themselves wrapped up in it.

Bob Norman from Broward-Palm Beach has been blogging nonstop about this case and how Villegas’ wife worked for the law firm that was headed by Scott Rothstein, who was recently arrested by the FBI for allegedly running a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.

How do you get involved? Villegas vs. Villegas is a good place to start.

What’s with the murder case? The murder he’s accused of committing is of Melissa Britt Lewis. I’ve written about Ms. Lewis, a promising young lawyer who worked in the law firm where Scott Rothstein was the principal shareholder. I questioned whether she knew too much, was too honest and those raking in the hundreds of millions didn’t want her blowing the whistle. What did Tony have to gain with murdering Lewis? Nothing that I can see.

Court filings in the Melissa Britt Lewis Estate can be found by following the link. The attorney who is handling the estate appears from the court records to be Jill Robin Ginsberg.

Broward County Case Number: PRC080003556	State Reporting Number: 062008CP003556A001CE
Court Type: Probate	Case Type: Petition For Administration
Incident Date: N/A	Filing Date: 07/11/2008
Court Location: Central Courthouse	Case Status: Pending - PR
Magistrate ID / Name: N/A	Judge ID / Name: 60J Grossman, Mel

Style: In Re Estate Of: Lewis, Melissa Britt

Did Tony Villegas kill Lewis? I have no idea, but after 30 years of practicing law I have my doubts. The motive that is being asserted is so weak and the evidence against him so flimsy that reasonable doubt is the frosting on this criminal defense cake. Add in the mega-Ponzi scheme that was going on at the time Tony’s wife was the office manager at RRA, along with Lewis being as honest as the day is long and reasonable doubt looks like a slam dunk. So if Tony gets off on the criminal charges he’s going to need help putting his life back together. And if his ex-wife is charged and convicted in the Ponzi scheme where does this extended family turn for legal help? If it isn’t us lawyers then who is it?

Right now no one has been convicted, only charged and the facts surrounding Villegas have to be enormously confusing and overwhelming. So if you’re a young lawyer looking to do some good work in Florida or even just getting your 15-minutes of fame, get in touch with Tony Villegas to see if you can help him out in his divorce case.

You can read more at this linked blogs.

RRA Litigation: Tony Villegas Deposition List, A Place to Start (Updated)

Steve Lombardi | December 01, 2009 9:01 AM | 1 Comment Des Moines, IA

Today looks like the day Scott Rothstein will be charged and then arrested by the FBI. He claims to not be talking but those who have followed this story closely see it differently. Rothstein has...

Did honesty get Florida lawyer, Melissa Lewis, killed? (Updated 11 ...

... Did honesty get Florida lawyer, Melissa Lewis, killed? (Updated 11/19/09). ... “I read your post about Melissa Lewis. Are you aware of the recent events in Ft. ... 101k

What happened to Melissa Lewis? If you can answer that question ...

... Miscellaneous. What happened to Melissa Lewis? If you can answer that question you may get a $250,000.00 reward. ... So what happened to Melissa Lewis? ... 101k

RRA Cast of Characters - Is Tony Villegas the Wrong Man? (UPDATED ...

... public. As for the original crime, the murder of Melissa Lewis is being prosecuted and one man’s life hangs in the balance. He ... 101k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_9FaKO0ugM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiv-TsSqu7M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQHxM80yKrg

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Crashing Head-on Into a Deputy Sheriff, Not the Best Day You've Had

Steve Lombardi — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:01:00 GMT

What caused 21 year old Travis Scott to veer straight into oncoming traffic?

That is the question Council Bluffs police are asking after the accident in the late hours of October 9^th 2009 between Mr. Scott and Pottawattamie County Deputy Jahn Kirlin that left Mr. Scott, his two passengers and the deputy injured. The accident happened on 23^rd St.; the driver Travis Scott and passenger Leah Wenninghoff were in serious condition, another passenger Anthony Biggert was listed in stable condition, and the Deputy was treated for hand and arm injuries. The case remains open for investigation. Yeah ... I guess you could say that.

This accident happened just before midnight on a Friday, involving two 21-year-olds and another one of 20 years. So what was the driver doing that caused this young driver to cross the center line and crash into the deputy? What were the distractions? Answer that question and the deputy will probably have an answer to what made them cross over the center line. Let’s see crashing head-on into a deputy sheriff’s car. I’d have to say that’s not the best day you can expect in your life.

In this instance the legal questions are:

1. Who was at fault and why?

2. Will the deputy sheriff file a workers' compensation claim and a personal injury claim against the other driver?

3. Will the passengers file claims against the young driver or were they also at fault for what was going on that created the distraction for the driver?

The threat of injury to law enforcement is about being on-the-road as much as it is in making an arrest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecjB1D2l4yY

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

An Iowa train vs car wreck is such A Painful Case

Steve Lombardi — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:01:00 GMT

Join me this afternoon for a walk with James Joyce. This is to honor all of those people who die from collisions with trains at train-road-crossings in Iowa and around the nation. In some ways they are preventable but in other ways not so easily prevented. A Painful Case is a short story raising speculation of whether drink, depression or just distraction caused the woman to be out walking across the rails. It's really a wonderful story filled with raw emotions that undulate as if we are on a roller coaster ride at Rocky Point.

This is not unlike the emotions you will go through when trying a case. As prepared as you think you are, you will find out just how difficult it is to control your emotions as the trial unfolds. You do not control the trial so much as IT controls you. As one of my mentors said in response to my comments about my adrenaline level, "Steve in trial work you will experience the highest highs and the lowest lows. Learn not to get too excited about your wins or your losses." Mr. Dutton couldn't have been more accurate. So join James Joyce as he explores Dublin with Mr. James Duffey's not-so-simple life in Ireland, a trial of sorts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYukNEZrzdU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAgD3Ve0r8A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31jpicjjVzA

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

RRA Litigation: Tony Villegas Deposition List, A Place to Start (Updated)

Steve Lombardi — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:01:00 GMT

Today looks like the day Scott Rothstein will be charged and then arrested by the FBI. He claims to not be talking but those who have followed this story closely see it differently. Rothstein has lost his law license and many of his assets seized; his law firm is in bankruptcy court. And what has Scott Rothstein been doing? Well, aside from living in hotel rooms he's been talking. And still the question remains as to what he knows about the murder of Melissa Lewis. And towards getting that question answered we come full circle to Tony Villegas.

UPDATE: Scott Rothstein was arrested around 7:45 a.m. this morning and is scheduled to appear at 11:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Watch the video clip from Channel 4 CBS.

http://cbs4.com/video/?id=87425@wfor.dayport.com

Where might the lawyers for Tony Villegas find names of those to depose as a way of finding out who knew what and when? After all it's looking more and more like Tony has been framed.

First I’d start with any lawyer who worked at RRA and left employment within the past 24 months. One person mentioned in a blog is Susan Dolin.

“We all seem to forget about one of the named partners in RRA early on. Her name is Susan Dolin (great attorney and nice person). Dolin abruptly quit and got the hell out of there. What did she see that made her give up that lucrative position as a named partner? Inquiring minds what to know.”

What does she know? And here is a list of potential witnesses to interview. You want motive, start here, they have to hate those that carried the Ponzi scheme and ruined their firm.

A
Adler, Russell S., Shareholder and Vice President
B
Barsky, Laurence S., Attorney
Berger, William J., Shareholder
Birken, Shawn L., Partner
Bofshever, Harold S., Partner
Buschel, Robert C., Partner
C
Cirulnick, Riley W., Attorney
Coen-Giovanelli, Dr. Sara, Partner
Cohen, Jodi N., Attorney
D
Dijols, Pedro E., Attorney
Dishowitz, Benjamin R., Attorney
F
Farmer, Gary M. Jr., Partner
Fistos, Mark S., Partner
G
Gibbons, Eugene, Attorney
Goldstein, Scott A., Partner
Gonzalez, Julio E. Jr., Partner
Guzman, Jan Paul, Attorney
H
Herrera, Frank, Partner
J
Jaffe, Steven R., Partner
K
Kitterman, Christina M., Partner
Kleinfeld, Denis A., Shareholder
Kusnick, Howard A., Partner
L
Lehrman, Seth Michael, Partner
Levy, Ellie A., Attorney
Linder, Carl H., Shareholder
Lippman, Steven N., Shareholder
M
Meyer, Diana, Attorney
N
Neiwirth, Arthur C., Partner
Nurik, Marc S., Shareholder
O
Osber, Steven H., Partner
P
Padowitz, Kenneth D., Partner
Pancier, Michael A., Partner
R
Rasor, Gregg E., Partner
Reyes, Carlos J., Shareholder
Rosenfeld, Kari E., Associate
Rosenfeldt, Stuart A., Founding Partner and President
Ross, John Michael, Partner
Rothstein, Scott W., Managing Partner, Chairman, CEO
S
Sardina, Gustavo, Attorney
Scheinberg, Howard M., Attorney
Schmidt, Justin B., Attorney
Smith, Grant J., Shareholder
Steinberg, Adam J., Partner
Stone, Barry J., Shareholder
Storfer, Richard B., Partner
Stracher, Les, Shareholder
Strohsahl, Brianne M., Attorney
T
Torres, Osvaldo F., Partner
W
Weissing, Matthew D., Partner
Williams, Johnny Jr., Partner
Wolfe, Tami R., Partner
Wright, Blandin J., Partner
Z
Zinkler, George L. III, Attorney

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi