The insurance coverage that an insurance lawyer recommends

This week, we began a three-week-long giveaway sweepstakes to bring awareness to the dangers of texting while driving in Michigan – as well as the importance of buying the right auto insurance. If you visit our Facebook page, you can enter to win  $1,032.  The only requirement is to watch a 30 second  video on distracted driving and filling out the entry form.

Why a $1,032 check? The Insurance Institute of Michigan’s December 2010 data states that the average auto insurance premium in Michigan is $1,032.02.

The winner can use the money however he or she wants. But as an insurance laywer, I hope the winner will use it to buy the right kind of auto insurance this  year.  Our  campaign isn’t just about distracted driving. It’s also to get the word out on just how many people are uninsured on our roads today and how critical auto insurance with Uninsured motorist coverage (UM) is to properly protect yourself.

As I blogged about before, about 50 percent of Detroit drivers are driving without any auto insurance, as reported in the Detroit Legal News. And in Michigan, about 19 percent of drivers have no auto insurance, according to a news release by the Insurance Research Council.

With that, I’d like to summarize additional coverages you can buy along with your mandatory Michigan No-Fault insurance. These insurance coverages provide more protection in case of a serious car accident – especially if that accident is with someone who doesn’t have No-Fault insurance.

Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage (UM/UIM) provides a valuable source of legal recovery after a car accident, when someone is injured by another driver who is uninsured or does not have adequate insurance.

Many auto insurance companies don’t inform their policy holders of these important options.

With UM and UIM, an injured person turns to his or her own auto insurance company to pay what would have been recovered from the at-fault driver, had that person been properly covered.

This coverage is very inexpensive. As I always say, for the price of a movie and popcorn, you can make sure your family is covered in case of a crash with an uninsured driver.

Remember, in most cases, your No-Fault insurance does not pay for repairs to your car if it is damaged in an accident. But collision coverage pays for repairs to your car when it is damaged in a crash.

There are three basic kinds of collision to choose from – limited, standard and broad form. These have varying deductibles (A deductible is the amount of money you agree to pay toward the cost of repairs before the insurance company steps in and pays the remainder).

Comprehensive insurance pays for your car if it is stolen or for repairs if your car is hit by a falling object, collides with an animal or is damaged in a fire, flood or by vandals’. Think of the insurance commercials that show objects falling onto cars with a comedic spin.

You  may be sued because of an accident. If this happens, your No-fault policy will pay up to the amounts shown in the residual liability section.

But courts sometimes award more than these amounts. If this happens, you would be responsible for paying the amount not covered by your insurance policy. Many people buy higher limits if liability insurance to protect themselves.

The No-Fault law protects insured people from being sued as a result of an auto accident, except for special circumstances. For car damage, a person can only be sued for up to $500 – if you are 50 percent or more at fault in an accident which causes damage to another person’s car. This is called the Michigan mini tort law.

But most companies offer limited property damage liability insurance to cover this $500 liability.

If you’re looking to buy insurance, take a look at our list of the top 4 Michigan auto insurance companies and tips for buying the right auto insurance.

We also have a book called What Auto Insurance Is Right For Me? It has the 8 essential questions you must ask your insurance agent before buying No-Fault insurance.

We hope all of these insurance tips help. Again, sign up for our distracted driving sweepstakes on Facebook! You could win a $1,032 check, and we really hope the winner will use the money for a year’s worth of auto insurance.

- Steven Gursten is recognized as one of the nation’s top insurance lawyers handling serious auto accident cases and No-Fault insurance litigation. He writes about the importance of Michigan’s No-Fault law, and is available for comment.

Related information:

3 potential cases after an auto accident

Guide to Michigan No-Fault law

Michigan’s 6 worst auto insurance companies

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Farmington Hills, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation with one of our No-Fault insurance lawyers.

Michigan Auto Lawyers

Michigan bike accident lawyer on anti-bicyclist bias by police

I was sent an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week titled, “A new breed of lawyers focuses on bicyclists’ rights.” The article focuses on a select few bicycle accident lawyers who are fighting back against the perceived police prejudice against cyclists.

The article dealt more with lawyers taking on tickets and citations against bicycle riders. But as a lawyer who has handled many Michigan bicycle accident cases involving serious injuries after bike riders were hit by cars, I can say I’ve seen this same bias in police in investigations.

Lawyers who handle cases for injured bicyclists need to be aware of two things that resonate from this article:

1. Police reports are often wrong and often erroneously blame the bicyclist. This stems in large part from the misunderstanding many police officers have about cyclist rights when investigating a bicycle accident.

2. In bike accident cases, there’s always a strong predisposition to blame the bicyclist.  Any injury lawyer that thinks otherwise should spend an afternoon focus grouping these cases as I have done, and hearing some of the things that  potential jurors say. Many of our jurors as motorists, feel that cyclists are “in the way” of traffic,” and should be able to avoid cars on the road.  Even when the car hits the biker, jurors tend to find fault with the cyclist just for being on a bike.

These are dangerous cases for lawyers who are inexperienced in handling bicycle accident injury cases. I’ve seen attorneys who aren’t familiar with bike accident liability arguments  get “no caused” on liability, even when they assumed negligence was very clear. Even when it’s undisputed that the car hits the bike, lawyers should never take negligence for granted in these cases.

Although the New York Times article spent a lot of time on police issuing tickets to cyclists for not keeping right, cyclists are also getting tickets for moving out of the designated bike lanes - even when they need to avoid obstacles such as cars or branches.

The bike accident cases I’ve worked on don’t really apply to tickets.  My cases involve injury  car-bicycle collisions, where I believe some police, and many people, tend to blame the cyclists.  The point to all this of course is that while cyclists have the same rights as everyone else on the road, many people harbor an unfounded bias against cyclists because these motorists, police officers, and others aren’t cyclists. And everyone has heard horror stories about how dangerous cycling on roads is, or knows someone who was seriously injured – even when it wasn’t their fault.

A lawyer representing an injured cyclist will have to voir dire extensively to make sure there is no predisposition to side with the motorist to the detriment of his or her injured cyclist client.

It’s nice to think about a Michigan one day, where most of the population cycles. But our current infrastructure makes that a pipe dream at the moment, and there are almost no bike lanes to allow people to safely bike to work.  While it’s nice to think about such a world, I wouldn’t recommend it in cities such as Detroit or Sterling Heights.

My advice to any bicycle rider who has been injured is to talk with an experienced Michigan bicycle accident lawyer who is familiar with and can work to undo the harmful effects of bias against bikers injured in accidents with cars.

Only through careful investigation of the accident scene, interviews with witnesses, accident reconstruction, deposition of the investigating police officers, extensive voir dire, focus groups and juror questionnaires on anti-bicyclist attitudes, can cyclists who were injured through no fault of their own recover their full measure of compensation after a serious bike accident.  In the meantime, keep safe!

Remember, you can visit Facebook.com/MichiganAutoLaw to enter to win a $1,032 check as part of our distracted driving awareness campaign.

- Steve Gursten is one of the nation’s top accident lawyers. He is head of Michigan Auto Law and has received the highest verdict in the state for a car accident or truck accident victim in 2008, 2009 and 2010, according to Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Gursten and the other accident lawyers at Michigan Auto Law regularly help injured bicycle accident victims.

- Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by Ed Yourdon

Related information to protect yourself:

The truth about delayed and missed traumatic brain injury diagnosis

Child safety tips - wear a bicycle helmet

Free book - How to Keep Your Children Safe

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Farmington Hills, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation with one of our bicycle accident lawyers.

Michigan Auto Lawyers

Illinois personal injury lawyer settles auto accident case for insurance policy limits

Chicago car crash attorneys have reached a settlement on behalf of a Cook County resident that was injured by an inattentive driver who rear-ended him as he was preparing to turn into a shopping mall parking lot. The victim suffered injuries to his neck and back.

On September 24, 2009, our client was traveling southbound on 25th Avenue in Bellwood, Illinois when he turned his right turn signal on and began to slow down to an appropriate turning speed. Before he could attempt the turn, a 1994 Chevy Lumina failed to yield to the victim and rear-ended his 2006 Honda Ridgeline. The Bellwood Police Department responded to the scene and after a brief investigation, they placed the driver of the Honda at fault.

Immediately following the collision, the victim had an onset of back and neck pain that required him to be taken to Loyola University Medical Center by ambulance. The hospital performed a series of diagnostic tests and initially diagnosed him with a cervical strain and thoracic spine pain. He was placed in an aspen collar, prescribed pain medication, and instructed to seek follow up treatment with an orthopaedic doctor.

Six days after the accident occurred, ongoing and worsening pain in the victim’s neck, right arm, and left arm necessitated a trip back to the hospital emergency room. After more tests, doctors found that he had tenderness in the paraspinal musculature and instructed him to begin physical therapy and seek further treatment if necessary.

After an examination by an orthopedic physician in October, the doctor ordered an MRI as he believed the plaintiff may have sustained a herniated disc in the accident. The MRI results showed plaintiff sustained a disc bulge with at C3-4 level, peripheral right sided neural foraminal encroachment and impression upon the thecal sac, a right sided posterolateral disc herniation at the C4-5 level, encroachment of the exiting nerve root zone, and proximal right neural foramen, and a disc bulge at the C7-T1 level and peripheral neural foraminal encroachment bilaterally.

The doctor recommended that he receive a cervical spine epidural injection if his radicular symptoms continued. Our client completed fifteen sessions of physical therapy, but the pain of the injury continued, limiting his ability to conduct daily life activities.

Illinois injury attorneys at our office obtained the defendant's $20,000 insurance policy limits. The case against the at fault driver resolved without having to commit to a time-consuming and expensive lawsuit. That being said, attorneys at our office believe the value of his injuries are greater than $20,000, so we are now pursuing an underinsured motorist claim against the plaintiffs own auto insurance carrier to recover an additional amount.

You may be entitled to compensation for your auto accident injuries if they were caused by the fault of another. Contact the lawyers at Abels & Annes for a free, no obligation case evaluation and see what your options are. Call (866) 99-ABELS.

Chicago Car Accident Lawyer

Brain injury lawyer tip: the significance of seizures following TBI

I recently interviewed a new client who was being tested at U of M hospital for post-traumatic Parkinson’s and seizures following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) from a truck accident.  The client is from Marquette, Michigan, and he has been driving all the way to U of M, as well as to MIND - the Michigan Institute for Neurological Disorders - following his injuries. 

I feel terrible for him.  Much of his treatment was delayed by doctors that his workers compensation carrier picked for him. But what makes the case notable and holds a lesson for  brain injury lawyers in Michigan and other states is the post-traumatic seizures he is now having. The client  had what was initially classified as a “mild” TBI — mild being a medical classification that has little meaning to the long-term consequences of the brain injury.  Over the past 18 months, his condition has clearly deteriorated, which is what caused his first lawyer to refer the case to my office.

Traumatic brain injury lawyers helping accident victims with seizures or “spells” following a brain injury should know that this is not uncommon. These can occur following mild traumatic brain injury and are described as a form of “post-traumatic epilepsy” consisting of “partial seizure-like symptoms.”  It usually indicates the brain is injured and damaged, particularly when there is no history of seizures or spells before the traumatic event.

The client’s TBI started fairly typically. And the early medical records show the classic constellation of traumatic brain injury symptoms, including dizziness, headache, sleep disturbance and fatigue, as well as cognitive symptoms such as deficits in attention, concentration and short-term memory.  But the seizures — usually lasting only a few seconds and including incontinence, smell, and extreme fatigue afterwards -  are very scary for him and his family. The truck accident victim’s wife reports that he “blanks out” and is then very confused and tired. These seizures can also be extremely dangerous, and even deadly.

About 10 years ago, I was friends with a lawyer who had a similar momentary seizure, not very different from other seizures he had had in the past, but this time he fell forward into a pillow at night with no one around. He suffocated and died. His loss was and is still very sad and tragic. 

The story of my friend above shows these partial seizure-like symptoms are very serious. For people who deal with seizures, it effects a person’s ability to drive a car or hold a job.  My client in this case is a truck driver, and the FMCSA has strict rules (many of which still unfortunately get ignored) about the health of drivers before they can drive a truck.

Seizures are also a major complicating factor contributing to poor outcomes in the “20 percent miserable minority” of people who have suffered brain injury from car accidents and truck accidents and who go on to have permanent disability.  That is hundreds of thousands of people every year who continue to have very serious problems and ongoing disability from TBI.  Medicine still has very little understanding as to why so large a segment of TBI victims make such poor recovery, although most of the doctors I talk to say genetics plays a large role here, as does cognitive reserve.

From past cases, and lots of neurologist examinations and cross-examinations of defense IMEs in TBI cases, I’ve learned that an epileptic seizure is caused by the inappropriate discharge of cerebral neurons as a result of brain dysfunction.

In a normal brain, the spread of electrical activity between neurons is restricted. During a seizure, there is an abnormal discharge of electrical activity in the brain. The most noticeable form of seizure is a “general seizure,” in which neurons throughout the entire brain are “activated” inappropriately.

But the majority of post-traumatic seizures are “partial seizures”  with a focal region of the brain with abnormal electrical discharge. I’ve been told that in most cases the partial seizures originate in the temporal lobe.  The temporal lobe is also the area involved with emotion, memory, olfaction and hearing.  Seizures can affect each of these, and the medical records from my client from Marquette do show each of these areas has been affected. 

The best advice I can give, as a lawyer who has been helping people with TBI and fighting these battles for almost 20 years,  is that it’s really important to have  a top neurologist involved in your client’s care, recovery, and rehabilitation. This can sometimes be a problem in our managed care, or in the case above, workers compensation and insurance company case manager driven world.   

As scary and disabling as partial-seizures can be for someone who was hurt in a truck accident, they are often missed and poorly documented in the medical records, especially in the beginning. This is because the “spells” are first noted by family, and more often because post-traumatic seizures are  overshadowed by more obvious injuries, including physical injuries and the cognitive and emotional troubles arising from a brain injury.

When defense lawyers attack these cases (and often the plaintiff, since with these “invisible injury cases” defense lawyers always try to attack the plaintiff. Ironic isn’t it, how the person who is hurt through no fault of their own because someone else isn’t paying attention is the one who always ends up on trial in TBI cases?), it’s important for the lawyer to explain that partial seizures can explain inconsistent neuropsychological testing. 

It helps to know where the defense is coming from in brain injury cases. 

Don’t forget to visit Facebook.com/MichiganAutoLaw this week to enter to win a $1,032 check as part of our distracted driving awareness campaign.

- Steven M. Gursten is a brain injury lawyer and head of Michigan Auto Law. He is a member of the American Association for Justice Traumatic Brian Injury Litigation Group. Steve received trial verdicts of $5.65 million and $3.5 million for brain injury car and truck accidents victims in Michigan. Both trial verdicts were the largest reported auto negligence verdicts in Michigan for the year.

Related information to protect yourself:

Steps TBI victims must take after an auto accident

The truth about delayed and missed TBI diagnosis

For brain injury lawyers: Michigan traumatic brain injury law

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Farmington Hills, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation with a Michigan brain injury lawyer. We can help.

Michigan Auto Lawyers

Chicago bike accident lawyer files Cook County lawsuit on behalf of injured teen

Illinois bicycle crash attorneys at Abels & Annes have filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Chicago teenager that was injured by a negligent driver. This claim arises out of an automobile vs. bicyclist collision which took place on August 22, 2009 at approximately 2:50 p.m. There was plenty of light, the roads were straight and flat and visibility was good.

The plaintiff, a fifteen year old boy, was riding his bicycle westbound along the sidewalk that ran along the north side of 37th Street in Chicago, Illinois. The defendant was driving southbound, exiting an alley. As the motorist drove across the sidewalk, she hit the bicycle rider with the front end of her vehicle.

The Chicago Police Department responded to the accident. The defendant admitted to the investigating police officer that she struck our client with her vehicle as she was exiting the alley.

After being struck the bicyclist flew up onto the driver's hood, and when the car stopped the teen was thrown off the hood onto the pavement. After landing on the pavement the plaintiff had an immediate onset of pain and discomfort.

The bike rider had back pain, left hand pain, and right foot pain. He was transported to Mount Sinai Hospital’s Emergency Room by his mother.

At Mount Sinai the teenager complained of back pain. A history was taken, he was examined and diagnostic testing was performed. He was given pain medication and instructed to seek follow up care after a few days.

Over the next couple of days the plaintiff's condition worsened and he sought follow up treatment at Mount Sinai’s Emergency Department two days later, on August 24, 2009. He continued to complain of severe low back pain. He was again examined and additional diagnostic tests were performed. A possible spinal fracture at L3 was discovered and a neurosurgeon was consulted. He was given more pain medication and muscle relaxants, was instructed to stay out of gym class and was instructed to seek follow up care. He was eventually allowed back into a modified gym class.

On August 25, 2009 our client followed up with a board certified neurologist. He continued to complain of severe low back pain. The doctor ordered a follow up x-ray. On August 27, 2009 he saw another physician and complained of severe back pain. At that time the doctor agreed with the neurologist’s plan of care. Teen was seen by the neuro again on August 31, 2009 at which time he continued to have complaints of back pain. The doctor ordered a CT scan and also recommended that the plaintiff stay home from school due to possible spinal fracture.

On September 8, 2009 a CT scan identified disc bulges at L4-5 and L5-S1 as well as a 3 mm bone island in the CT and a course of physical therapy was prescribed. Following the initial course of therapy he returned to the neurologist on October 5, 2009 with ongoing complaint of back pain radiating into his right thigh. The doctor extended the course of therapy and prescribed muscle relaxants.

Following the second course of therapy the teen returned to the doctor on November 2, 2009 with ongoing low back pain, especially in the morning. The physician explained that recurrence of back pain is a normal part of the healing process. The doctor discharged him as having reached maximum medical improvement.

Unfortunately on December 14, 2009 the plaintiff suffered a severe exacerbation of his back pain when he bent over to pick up a television remote. He went to Mount Sinai’s Emergency Department where he was given pain medications and muscle relaxants and instructed to seek follow up medical care.

On December 18, 2009 he followed up with on of his physicians. He continued to complain of severe low back pain radiating into his thigh. The doctor prescribed another course of physical therapy. Following this course of therapy he returned to the doctor with ongoing low back pain with numbness in his right leg. His doctor suspected a herniated disc at L4-5 and ordered an MRI.

The lumbar MRI performed on January 8, 2010 revealed a 2 mm disc bulge at L3-4, a 4-5 mm disc bulge at L4-5, and a 5 mm disc bulge at L5-S1. Based upon these findings the doctor referred our client to a pain specialist, board certified anesthesiologist and pain management specialist.

The client first saw the specialist on January 28, 2010. He recommended lumbar epidural steroid injections. Due to his mother’s concern regarding this procedure they sought a second opinion from another neurologist with Mount Sinai Medical Group. The second doctor agreed with the first doctor's plan. The injections were performed on February 4, 2010. Following the initial injection the client had relief for two or three days and then the pain returned, although at a slightly lower level than prior to the injections.

Following the injections both doctors recommended that the continue with physical therapy. The plaintiff continued with therapy at Schwab Rehabilitation Center through the beginning of December, 2010.

Given the plaintiff's young age the treating physicians are very reluctant to perform any sort of invasive surgical procedure such as a spinal fusion. There are no real treatment options left other than to continue with the home exercise program provided through physical therapy, curtain his physical activities and learn to live with his pain and limitations.

Medical expenses incurred by our client so far total over $50,000.

Despite the treatment he has undergone, the teen continues to suffer from pain and discomfort in his low back. This pain has greatly affected his life. As a result of his injuries he has been unable to engage in many activities he enjoyed prior to the collision, and those activities he can engage in cause him pain and he cannot participate as he did prior to the collision.

It remains painful for him to sit, stand or walk for any length of time. It is painful for him to bend or twist. The teenager was an avid football player and softball player. He dreamed of playing college football. However, since the collision he has been unable to participate in football, softball or any other sports. He was taken out of gym class and when he was returned it was to a specialized gym class.

These restrictions would be traumatic for anyone, but they are especially burdensome for a teenager who should be in the most active and carefree portion of his life. The injuries caused by the negligence of the defendant will continue to trouble the plaintiff for the remainder of his life. He has even been told by his doctors that he will not be able to perform any physical labor which will significantly impact his career options and lifetime wages.

As often the case with auto insurance carriers, the adjuster evaluating the claim has no clue to what the case is worth, and offered the plaintiff a minimal amount to settle. A lawsuit was filed against the defendant to maximize the client's recovery.

The last time our office went to trial against this insurance carrier, our client was awarded an amount over 5 times greater that the pre-litigation settlement offer. Some insurance adjusters never learn, and this is why accident victims often need help from the injury attorneys at our office.

If you have received a low settlement offer from an insurance company on a bodily injury claim, or if you feel you are being treated unfairly, or if you just feel you are in over your head, contact the accident lawyers at Abels & Annes for a free consultation.

Other recent blog posts:

Accident attorneys file lawsuit against DUI driver

Injury lawyers settle case for insurance policy limits

Chicago Car Accident Lawyer

Chicago injury lawyer settles DUI accident lawsuit for $100,000 policy limits

Illinois personal injury lawyer Gary Annes has reached a $100,000 policy limits settlement on behalf of a client who suffered painful injuries in a car accident caused by woman who had smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol prior to the incident.

On August 2, 2008, the defendant was driving northbound, at an excessive rate of speed, in the leftmost lane of IL-53 in Rolling Meadows when she lost control of her vehicle, improperly crossed over all lanes of traffic to her right and the shoulder, impacted with the metal guardrail, swerved back left, and crashed into the passenger side rear quarter panel of the plaintiff’s 2000 Subaru Forrester.

The woman admitted to paramedics that she had been drinking, and the drug screen at the emergency room was positive for marijuana, cocaine, and valium. She later admitted to smoking marijuana on two separate occasions that day, including approximately 45 minutes before the incident.

The woman had a prior DUI conviction from less than a year prior to that date, as well as other prior arrests related to drugs and alcohol. She was issued several tickets for the incident and pled guilty to failure to reduce speed to avoid a collision, improper lane usage, and driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol. The accident was investigated by the Illinois State Police.

After impact, the victim’s car began to spin out of control, causing her to hit her head on the driver’s side window, hit her left arm, elbow, shoulder, knee, and ankle against the driver’s side door, and her right knee against the center console. When the paramedics arrived, she complained of headaches and hyperventilation.

Shortly after the accident she was treated at the Glenbrook Hospital emergency room. There, the woman complained of pain in her neck, left shoulder, elbow, arm, knee, and was suffering from a headache. Tests were performed and an MRI revealed that she had multiple disc protrusions. The pain and discomfort then worsened over the next couple days. Her primary care physician recommended a course of physical therapy.

On November 10, 2008, the victim followed up with her primary care physician as she was still experiencing pain, primarily in her head and neck. She was referred to a chiropractor and underwent physical therapy treatment from then until June of 2009. Despite these treatments, the plaintiff’s condition continued to worsen, especially with regard to her knees and ankles.

Her doctor ordered MRI’s for her knees, which revealed meniscus tears in both. The doctor related both injuries to her car accident and recommended bilateral knee arthroscopies with debridement. He then performed the surgery at Weiss Memorial Hospital in July 2010, which he reported was needed as a result of the motor vehicle collision. She was prescribed a course of treatment consisting of twenty-five physical therapy sessions.

As her knee problems became more manageable, she sought treatment for the pain in her foot and ankle. Bilateral MRI’s were performed, and showed sprain or partial tear of the distal posterior tibial tendon in both feet and an avulsion injury of the synchondrosis of the naviculare in the left foot. The doctor reported that the condition was caused by the motor vehicle accident and recommended surgery for both the foot and ankle, which the woman plans to undergoe in the near future.

As a result of the injuries caused by the intoxicated driver, the victim was unable to engage in many of the activities she enjoyed prior to the collision. In addition, most activities of her daily life, such as sitting, standing, cooking, shopping, cleaning, walking stairs, and going to work, were impossible for a time, and then later caused her pain when she did attempt to accomplish them.

She hired the lawyers our law firm shortly before the two-year statute of limitations, and we immediately began working to secure the maximum compensation possible for the life-altering injuries she sustained at the hands of a negligent driver. We obtained the defendant's insurance policy limits. And we continue to work on the case, however, as the $100,000 is not adequate to compensate the victim for all the pain and suffering she has endured. We are now seeking additional monetary damages in the form of an underinsured motorist claim against her own insurance provider.

Tort liability is based on a simple notion, fairness. You have the absolute right not be subjected to harm at the hands of others, and if you are, you have the right to monetary compensation for your injuries. If you have been unfairly hurt by another person in a car accident, bicycle accident, work injury, slip and fall, or other situation, please call Abels & Annes. Our lawyers will consult you on your accident, free of charge. Call (866) 99-ABELS to speak to an attorney.

Click below to read other recent articles:

Attorney resolves truck vs. pedestrian accident case

Auto accident lawyer keeps settling cases

Chicago Car Accident Lawyer

New rule curbs lawyer solicitation letters in Michigan

Let’s face it, there is nothing good about an injured auto accident victim being barraged by personal injury attorney solicitation letters in the mail days after a car crash, asking if they need an injury lawyer. It is incredibly demeaning to the legal profession, and especially to Michigan lawyers who practice personal injury law and auto accident litigation with integrity. I’m sure it leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of auto accident victims who received these solicitation letters.

What’s worse, the practice of injury lawyers sending FOIA requests out for police reports and then sending these solicitation letters to accident victims has been quickly spreading in the last couple years. I could easily tick off almost  a dozen personal injury law firms that regularly send these solicitation letters out today (because when I meet my clients for meetings, they show me these solicitation letters).

And what is still worse is that many of these solicitation letters are from personal injury lawyers who have no real qualifications or credentials to handle serious auto accident cases. Come to think of it, that’s  probably the best explanation of why these lawyers are sending solicitation letters in the first place. But in the last couple years, there were a couple well-known personal injury law firms that were also sending the solicitation letters and engaging in the process. It was becoming  a race to the bottom.

Now thankfully, there are some (minor) restrictions on the process.  At least it’s a start.

The new rule, which amends MRPC 7.3 on attorney solicitation says:
•    That an injury attorney must now wait 30 days to contact a potential client by a written communication after a death, injury or accident.
•    That the solicitation letters now need to have the words “advertising material” on the outside of the envelope, and at the beginning and end of the letter.
•    This requirement applies to any type of brochure, postcard, letter, pamphlet etc., no matter how it is written or delivered.

Tomorrow I’ll be blogging about the need to ban insurance company solicitation of car accident victims.

- Steve Gursten is one of the nation’s top injury lawyers handling auto accident lawsuits. He is head of Michigan Auto Law and has received the highest verdict in the state for a car accident or truck accident victim in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Related information:

Worst personal injury attorney commercials

Michigan car accident FAQs

When should I contact an injury lawyer?

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Farmington Hills, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation with one of our personal injury lawyers.

Michigan Auto Lawyers

Proposed change to Michigan rules on lawyer referral fees is terrible for accident victims

I recently discussed the recent interview I had with Michigan Lawyers Weekly about the proposed amendment to rules governing referral fees between lawyers. If passed, this rule would limit referral fees to 25 percent, among other harmful changes.

The Michigan Supreme Court clerk is taking comments on the proposal until Sept. 1, 2011. They can be sent by email to MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov, or in writing to: P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909. This is what I wrote:

The Michigan Supreme Court is considering changing a rule change that will significantly harm the quality of legal representation in Michigan, and will certainly harm the public that we as lawyers have sworn to represent.

The proposed change to Rule 1.5 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct:
1. Is unnecessary.
2. Seeks to poorly address a problem that does not yet exist in Michigan.
3. Seeks to regulate the arms-length contractual agreement made between lawyers.
4. And, most important of all, it significantly harms the unsuspecting public in need of legal help.
5. It also harms the public by creating a perverse financial disincentive for lawyers to NOT refer cases to subject matter experts, but to handle these cases themselves.

There seems no reason for this proposed rule change to MRPC 1.5 other than as a boondoggle for lawyers who are less qualified to provide quality legal representation on matters that they should be referring out to injury attorneys better able to provide quality legal representation. This proposed rule also creates a strong financial disincentive for the referring lawyer to refer a case to a specialist, and it will result in harming the public and diminishing the quality of legal representation in this state.

The public policy behind this proposed rule change could not be worse.

The rule change being considered would regulate how Michigan lawyers refer cases to other Michigan lawyers and cap the attorney referral fee to 25 percent.

We as lawyers in the state of Michigan have an important interest in protecting the public and ensuring the public receives the best legal representation possible. This proposed rule change to MRPC Rule 1.5 would damage the quality of legal help and harm unsuspecting members of the public, by making it harder for Michigan lawyers to refer cases to recognized subject experts who, by virtue of experience, demonstrated results, and legal expertise, and receive referrals from other lawyers.

Again, this proposed rule would significantly harms the unsuspecting public in need of legal representation by making it harder for lawyers to refer cases to legal experts. The rule has a number of  unnecessary and bureaucratic legal disclosure requirements. These disclosure rules would create a dampening effect that will make it awkward for lawyers to connect clients with those lawyers best able to serve their interests. It will be extremely awkward for many injury attorneys, especially in the beginning of a case and new attorney-client relationship to explain to a new client why they feel the client would be better served with a subject matter specialist. Instead of referring these cases out to lawyers better able to help the client, more lawyers will choose to keep cases they would have otherwise referred to other lawyers. It is the unsuspecting client who is harmed.

The legal profession should be making it easier to have lawyers connect clients with those lawyers best able to help them, and who have the most subject matter expertise and experience. This proposed rule change instead makes it harder.

Yes, contingent fees between lawyers and the public should be – must be –  regulated.  We have a legitimate and important interest in preventing abuse, and as a professional organization, we should seek to protect the public from abuse.  An attorney-client contingent fee agreement that is signed between a client and a lawyer should have safeguards so if a client is injured, or vulnerable, or unsophisticated, he or she is protected.

This proposal, however, seeks to regulate the contractual relationship among lawyers. It seeks to impose regulation on a voluntary agreement negotiated freely between two attorneys. These referral agreements should reflect the skill of the attorney being referred the case, the underlying complexity and cost of the case, and the nature of the attorneys relationship to each other. Michigan lawyers should be able to enter into a private contract based upon these, and other factors.

Moreover, this unnecessary regulation seeks to poorly addresses a problem that does not even exist in Michigan.

Who is this proposed rule intended to protect?  The lawyer who probably shouldn’t have signed the case to begin with, or the unsuspecting public? It is fiction to believe in a tough and competitive legal world, that a lawyer won’t sign a case he probably would otherwise have referred to another lawyer, even if the client would have been far better served by that lawyer referring the case to an expert and receiving an attorney referral fee.  Speaking of fiction, this proposed rule change sounds like something out of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”  Perhaps we should call it the “Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act for Less Qualified Lawyers”?

Limiting the maximum referral fee to 25 percent of the amount recovered creates a direct adverse financial incentive for the referring lawyer. We are creating an economic incentive for injury attorneys to keep cases because by capping the referral fee to 25 percent, that lawyer makes just as much money if he keeps the case as he would if it had been referred out, even if the client recovers less than half! The money the referring lawyer receives is the same, but the client (and innocent public in need of legal representation) has now received one-half to one-third the amount he or she should have received if the mater had been referred to a more qualified lawyer to handle the case.

This rule only hurts the public, and it only helps lawyers less qualified to handle legal matters that they should be referring out to more qualified lawyers.

These cases should be referred to a specialist.  Yes, a specialist!  For it is time for the Michigan Supreme Court to change its out-dated rules prohibiting attorneys from indicating they specialize in a specific area of law. It is time we recognize what lawyers in Michigan do every single day – which is they refer cases to lawyers that specialize in that area of law.

Our ethical rules are increasingly at odds with a legal world that is ever more complex, more fragmented, and more specialized with every passing day. We should be encouraging lawyers to connect the public with those lawyers who specialize in that area of law, because it is the client who is best served. We should not be ignoring the increasing complexity of law today, or trying to enforce rules that were created for a by-gone era of general practitioners. And we certainly should not be creating financial disincentives that prevent the public from receiving the highest quality of legal representation possible.

Our mission is to serve the public, not ourselves. This rule change only serves those lawyers who should have referred out the case and received an attorney referral fee by putting the client’s interest first.

- Steve Gursten is one of the nation’s top injury attorneys. He is head of Michigan Auto Law and has received the highest verdict in the state for a car accident or truck accident victim in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Related information:

No-Fault tip for injury lawyers: pick your venue for PIP cases

Three potential cases for auto accidents in Michigan

Michigan personal injury attorneys

Michigan Auto Law is the largest law firm exclusively handling car accident, truck accident and motorcycle accident cases throughout the entire state. We have offices in Farmington Hills, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. Call (800) 777-0028 for a free consultation with one of our injury attorneys.

Michigan Auto Lawyers

Chicago car accident lawyer to represent woman injured on the North Side

An Illinois injury attorney at Abels & Annes has entered into an agreement to represent a Chicago woman that was injured in a May, 2011 car crash. The incident took place in the area of Milwaukee Avenue & Austin. The plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by another car in traffic.

The collision was actually witnessed by a Chicago police officer who happened to be in the area. That officer handled the investigation.

Our client had an immediate onset of neck and low back pain after the accident. She was seen a short time later at Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge. There she was diagnosed with neck and back sprain/strain.

Over the coming days the plaintiff's pain only increased. She sought follow-up treatment with both her primary physician and a chiropractor. The chiro started her on a course of therapy.

Unfortunately, the treatment did not help relieve her pain and she is now under the care of an orthopedic medical doctor in the Chicago area.

Our office will be pursuing a negligence claim against the at-fault driver and her insurance carrier.

If you've been hurt in an Illinois auto accident, contact a Chicago personal injury lawyer at Abels & Annes for a free case evaluation. Contact us online or call 312-399-8988 to speak to a attorney directly.

Chicago Car Accident Lawyer

Chicago personal injury lawyer to represent man hurt in hit-and-run accident

Illinois car crash attorneys at Abels & Annes have agreed to represent a Chicago man that was injured in a traffic collision in May, 2011. The incident occurred at Clark and Jackson in the Loop.

The plaintiff was sitting at a red light when a pickup truck slammed into the rear his car. The pickup then fled the scene, driving away going westbound on Jackson Street, which is an eastbound one-way street.

After the accident, both our client and witnesses were able to take down the hit and run driver's license plate number. The Chicago Police Department responded to the scene of the collision and ran the license plate number, identifying the owner.

The next day the plaintiff called the defendant, who surprisingly cooperated, admitted involvement and gave his auto insurance information. It is unclear if he will now face criminal charges for fleeing the scene.

In my experience, a fact pattern like this is uncommon. Typically drivers that flee the accident are uninsured.

The plaintiff sustained neck and back, shoulder, and right elbow injuries in the crash. He was treated at Stroger Hospital after the crash.

In the days following the incident his pain only increased. He is now under the care of a medical doctor in the Chicago area.

The plaintiff's vehicle sustained heavy damage in the accident and was totaled.

If you have been hurt in an Illinois car accident, contact the personal injury lawyers at Abels & Annes for a free case evaluation. Call us at 312-924-7575.

Chicago Car Accident Lawyer

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Chicago personal injury lawyer to represent passenger hurt in car accident

Illinois auto accident attorneys at Abels & Annes have agreed to help North Side resident that was recently injured in a collision. Our client was riding as a backseat passenger in a multiple vehicle crash.

The accident occurred in the area of Belmont and Kolmar Street in Chicago at the beginning of May, 2011. The plaintiff's car was traveling behind a truck in a line of traffic. At that time, the truck slowed and stopped for emergency vehicles immediately ahead of them.

The plaintiff's vehicle stopped in time, however her vehicle was rear-ended by the automobile directly behind them. The car that did not stop in time was then rear-ended by another vehicle, creating a second impact.

The Chicago Police Department responded to the scene and handled the crash investigation.

The plaintiff sustained back and neck injuries in the accident. She was seen shortly after the accident at Illinois Masonic Medical Center. There she was examined by ER physicians, x-rays were taken and she was prescribed a medication. She was diagnosed with neck and back sprain/strain.

Over the next several days following the collision our client's pain increased substantially. She is now under the care of an orthopedic physician in Chicago.

If you have been hurt in a traffic collision, contact the Illinois injury attorneys at Abels & Annes for a free, no obligation consultation. Call 312-924-7575 or click here to fill out a contact form. There is no attorney's fee unless a recovery is made on your behalf.

Chicago Car Accident Lawyer

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Illinois injury lawyer to represent Chicago car crash victim

Chicago auto accident attorneys at Abels & Annes have signed on to represent a local resident that was injured in an April, 2011 collision. The accident occurred in the 3500 block of Montrose Avenue. Our client was driving westbound in a 2000 Dodge Neon when she was rear-ended by the driver of a 1995 Subaru that was also moving westbound.

Immediately after the accident the plaintiff started experiencing neck pain and headaches. She was seen shortly there after at the Resurrection Hospital emergency room. There she was examined by emergency room physicians. The ER doctors diagnosed her with acute neck sprain, prescribed pain medication and instructed her to follow-up with a physician.

Since the date of the accident her pain has only increased and she is now treating with orthopedic doctors in Chicago.

The Chicago Police Department handled the crash investigation.

Chicago Car Accident Lawyer

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Chicago car accident lawyer keeps settling cases

Home Posted On: April 21, 2011 by Dave Abels

Illinois personal injury attorneys at Abels & Annes have recently settled an auto accident claim against a driver insured by Geico.

The first case arises from an accident that occurred back on May 26, 2010 at 9 AM, in the City of Chicago. Our client was driving a 1995 Mazda Protege northbound on Cottage Grove Avenue approaching 88th St. when the defendant, who was operating a 1992 Chevrolet Van southbound on Cottage Grove, attempted an illegal U-turn at the intersection of 88th and Cottage Grove. As the defendant attempted to U-turn he struck our client's vehicle.

The Chicago Police Department came to the scene of the accident. After interviewing the drivers, the investigating officer ticketed the defendant with making the illegal U-turn.

The plaintiff sustained back injuries in the crash. She was seen at the Jackson Park Hospital emergency room shortly after. x-rays were taken she was diagnosed with ace thoracic sprain. She was also prescribed pain medication.

The plaintiffs pain became worse in the days following the accident. She also developed neck pain, shoulder pain and headaches. She sought follow-up treatment with a chiropractic physician. The doctor prescribed course of physical therapy the consisted of electrical stimulation, therapeutic exercises, neuromuscular reeducation, heat treatment, manual therapy, mechanical traction and ultrasound therapy. She attended physical therapy on 15 occasions through August, 2010.

The case settled for just under $8,500. No lawsuit had to be filed. This is the second case we resolved with Geico Insurance over the last few weeks.

In the other claim against Geico, our client was the victim of a hit-and-run auto accident. He was stopped at a stop sign at the intersection of 71st and Michigan in Chicago when he was rear-ended. The at fault driver then fled the scene.

The plaintiff sustained neck, shoulder and back injuries in the accident. He was seen in the ER at John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital and then had follow up treatment with an orthopedic in Chicago.

Our client had hit-and-run / uninsured motorist coverage with Geico. The case settled for just over $6,000.

If you've been injured in a traffic collision, contact the Chicago auto accident attorneys at Abels & Annes for free consultation. Call 312-924-7575.

Posted by Dave Abels

View the Original article

Michigan insurance lawyer tip – excess replacement services are allowable expenses

Warning  - legalese alert.  This blog is written more for my Michigan auto accident lawyer and insurance claims adjuster readers. But it addresses an extremely important issue that impacts every economic claim made in every auto accident trial that lawyers in Michigan are making today.

Every auto accident case I’ve ever tried that has had an economic claim also had an excess replacement services claim. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, we tell our clients that replacement services are help with services you would have normally performed if you were not injured in an auto accident.

Replacement services claims here have two different, but interrelated meanings. There is the No-fault insurance claim made with your own auto insurance company for replacement services. They are paid at $20 per day, and limited to three years under the Michigan No Fault Act.

Then there is the excess replacement services claim. The excess replacement services claim arises after the first three years of No-Fault, if the auto accident victim is still disabled due to his or her injuries and can’t perform these services. This can also be an excess claim, over and above the $20 per day that the insurance company must pay in replacement services during the first three years.

That’s because the $20 per day for replacement services was set by statute in 1973, but was never indexed to inflation

View the Original article

The Car You Rent May Be Dangerous To Your Health And Safety - Experienced Auto Defect Lawyer Weighs In

Home Posted On: March 23, 2011 by Jeffrey M. Reiff The Car You Rent May Be Dangerous To Your Health And Safety - Experienced Auto Defect Lawyer Weighs In

As I have written for many months, the rental car market has a hidden danger lurking in it’s system. Namely, that no law exists for preventing cars to be rented without fixes, even after product recalls.

Approximately four months ago, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration first announced that approximately 3 million rental cars were being investigated in that they had been recalled for product defects. However, no action had been taken. It appeared then the rental companies were putting profitability over the safety of its renters and consumers. That initial recall included 29 models from General Motors Company, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Motor Company that had been sold to the rental car companies fleets. Recently General Motors and Chrysler informed NHTSA that tens of thousands of the recalled vehicles still had been unrepaired for months or longer.

Since automobile rental companies are some of the largest purchasers of motor vehicles from automobile manufacturers, news sources have indicated that Ford did not release its data concerning recalls, claiming that the release of their information may have a potential negative impact on its relationship with rental car companies could result in decreased sales of vehicles to those companies.

When you are on vacation you generally have your family and precious cargo of children with you and to think that there is no law currently requiring rental companies to make repairs to recalled vehicles before renting them or selling them to consumers is absolutely frightening and untenable.

As an experienced Pennsylvania automotive product liability, product defects, lawyer and consumer safety advocate, I query with NHTSA that

View the Original article

Female Personal Injury Lawyer

import url(http://www.marylandaccidentlawyerblog.com/css/marylandaccidentlawyerblog.css); Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog Maryland Car Accident Attorney Miller and Zois, Discussing Car and Truck Crash Claims in the Baltimore and Washington Area HomeWebsitePractice Areas Contact Us Home

View the Original article

8 Mistakes Accident Victims Make Without a Lawyer

Next » Posted On: February 3, 2011 by Laura G. Zois

Do you need a lawyer in every accident case where there is an injury? No. But here are 8 mistakes people without a lawyer often make.

Should I Settle or File a Lawsuit? (the choice to settle your case and when those choices typically arise)

Handling Accident Cases Without a Lawyer (thoughts for the unrepresented)

Posted by Laura G. Zois

View the Original article

Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog Ranking

Next » Posted On: March 7, 2011 by Laura G. Zois

The Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog has listed Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog in the #2 spot for Maryland attorney blogs.

The fact that (1) my partner made the list, and (2) the list is not intended to be in order, does not diminish my accomplishment.

On the arguably more objective Avvo Blog Rankings (which use Alexa rankings), the Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog is 94th nationally.

Posted by Laura G. Zois

View the Original article