Personal Injury Lawyers: A Few Bad Apples

It’s no secret that trial lawyers, in general, and personal injury lawyers, in particular, have a bad name. We like to believe that this reputation is caused by a few bad apples that really do deserve the name “ambulance chasers.” An undercover story yesterday by WOAI television in San Antonio revealed a situation where one attorney allegedly attempted to circumvent the rules regarding client solicitation.

In Texas, attorneys are prevented from contacting accident victims immediately after a car wreck. This law is designed to limit the “ambulance chasing” that is going on. According to the story, to get around this law, the attorney and chiropractors engaged in a scheme where chiropractors would purchase accident reports and contact accident victims, who were offered free medical treatment. Once at the chiropractors’ offices, the chiropractic staff would have attorneys’ “representatives” in the office ready to sign up the clients. We have heard from others that similar schemes are going on here in Austin and other cities around the state.

To help prevent this loophole, many entities, including many trial lawyers and insurance companies, are requesting legislation that prevents anyone other than parties to wrecks, their insurance companies, and the media from purchasing accident reports until sixty days after the wreck. You can let your legislators know your thoughts on such a proposed law by clicking here.

For more information about personal injury claims, feel free to visit our website.

Litigation as a source of reform

Today’s Washington Post contains a story documenting how the emergency room death of a teenage daughter and the resulting litigation and uproar led to a series of reforms that revolutionized the medical education system. 

 That kind of information is not news to us.  For years, trial lawyers have used litigation and the threat of litigation to help American citizens.   For example, trial lawyers have been responsible for increasing the safety of consumer products and for improving the working conditions of employees throughout the country.  And lawyers have helped reduce environmental pollution.

 The Washington Post article and the other gains from litigation illustrate how we view our work.  At our firm, “holding wrongdoers accountable” is more than a slogan — it’s our mission.

 You can learn more about us through our website.

Holiday Toy Safety

In time for the holidays, the US Public Interest Research Group has just released their 2006 list of dangerous toys. There are the usual suspects of toys that may have choking hazards or dangerously loud noises, but two new threats show up this year. Increasingly popular are toys that contain small, high powered magnets. These magnets are so strong that  if two or more are ingested the attraction can pinch or even tear right through internal organs causing serious injury or death.  Heeding the risk, the Consumer Product Safety Commission yesterday recalled many of the popular Polly Pocket dolls because of the magnet danger.

The Public Interest Research Group also began testing toys for lead, and a surprising number of toy jewelry sets had alarmingly high rates of lead.

If you’re buying for your kids, grandkids or others, please take a few minutes to look over the list.

Medical Malpractice: Costs for medical mistakes

In reviewing medical malpractice cases, we’re not really surprised by the rate of malpractice. But we are surprised by the number of medical providers that routinely bill patients and insurance companies for the care that went wrong and, even more appalling, for the care needed to correct the initial mistakes. In the past, individual patients had little power to resist these efforts. Fortunately, someone does.

An article in today’s Chicago Tribune describes the efforts of many large health care purchasers (for example, Boeing and General Motors) to stop the unnecessary charges. The groups called on hospital groups to apologize for the numerous errors and to waive any costs related to 28 “never” events — medical errors so basic that these employers say the errors should never happen. These events include surgery on the wrong body part, mixing up donor sperm in artificial insemination, retention of foreign objects (such as a sponge) in the body after surgery, and the giving of contaminated medication. Although the article says the number of such “never” events occurring annually is unknown, it is likely in the tens of thousands per year.

It will be interesting to see how the health care industry responds, and if they do, whether any benefits will be passed on to individual consumers or just those large employers with leverage.

For another post of the inefficiencies of health care, click here.

Texas Personal Injury News: Safer Vehicles

This morning, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released its list of top safety picks for 2007 vehicles.  This list looks radically different from last year’s list because the Institute required all picks to have electronic stability control, a feature that has a proven track record in helping avoid one vehicle accidents.

We encourage anyone interested in buying a new vehicle to at least take a look at the list.  While safer cars might not be good for our business, they are good for our clients.

The Activist Texas Supreme Court

How many times have you heard it during this election cycle? We are constantly told that we need conservative judges that “enforce the law, not make the law” or judges that ” strictly interpret the law.” Two recent Texas Supreme Court cases demonstrate the fallacy in these statements.   In each of these cases, the Court chose to ignore the plain language of statutes and essentially create the law as they see fit.

In Alex Sheshunoff Management Services, Inc. v. Johnson, the Republican led majority ignores the plain meaning of the Texas covenant not to compete statute and clear precedent from a 1994 Texas Supreme Court case to find against the plaintiff.

A few days later, in FFP Operating Partners, LP v. Duenez, the Court again ignored the plain language of the Dram Shop statute to find against the plaintiff.  But what is really appalling about Duenez is that the Court originally found on behalf of the plaintiff in March of 2003.  However, after three members of the majority stepped down from the Court, the former dissenters convinced their new justices to withdraw the prior opinion and reverse the outcome.  This is a dangerous step in the jurisprudence of this state.  Our court system depends on a system of precedent.  Opinions should not change simply because prior judges have retired.

Sadly, these cases are not the exception, but the rule, for our Supreme Court, which often ignores statutes and the law in efforts to reach the outcomes it seeks.

Click here for more information about these opinions.