Florida Injury Lawyer & Attorney : LaBovick & LaBovick Law Firm: Serving West Palm, Boynton, North Palm, West Palm Beach, Jupiter

Today, April 22, 2008 is Earth Day. It is amazing that Earth Day has been around since 1970 and I only seem to remember hearing about it a few years ago.  Last week I purchased several reusable shopping bags at Publix, a major chain in the Southeast. Initially, I thought the .99 price tag was just a gimmick to get people to buy a product.  I see that I was wrong, as I bring my 4 bags back to the market with me, I am pleasantly surprised to see other shoppers doing the same.  The bags are awesome. One bag takes the place of 4 plastic shopping bags and two large paper bags. Based on my bagging methods. 

I spoke to Managing Partner, Brian LaBovick, Esq. regarding my post on Earth Day and asked what he was doing today to acknowledge Earth Day. After my story of the Publix "reusable shopping bags" he decided to go out and buy bags for all of our LaBovick & LaBovick staff members in an effort to help promote saving the environment in small steps. Yes, I mention small steps, because if we all take a few steps to make the environment better, it will make a difference. According to the EPA, companies can make a difference at the work place in helping the environment. A few   simple things, to start with include: 1) reducing energy use, 2) Re-use or recycle office products, 3) Use water more efficiently 4) Efficient Commuting for the environment, this includes, working from home when possible, carpooling use of mass transportation 5) Turn off  equipment, copier, printers, computers when not in use, 6) Use energy efficient lighting.

As a Boutique Florida Personal Injury Law firm, we are doing a little bit more than just giving reusable Publix Shopping bags to our employees. About a year ago, Managing Partner, Brian LaBovick, told me that he wanted to go paperless. He asked me to investigate and find the necessary steps on what it will take for us to be a paperless office. Imagine a paperless law firm. Believe it or not, they do exist. They are few and far between, but not impossible.

We are exploring the paperless office, which will take some time and effort, but in the interim, our Florida Injury Law Firm has taken some giant leaps in being more efficient and environmentally friendly. Last year we recycled old computers and monitors, after stripping them of all data, first. We shred and recycle paper and recycle cans that we use for beverages in the firm for staff and clients. We purchased a state of the art copier to scan documents for us to send PDFs of files to Doctors,  Insurance Adjusters, Defense Counsel, Experts and others involved in Personal injury and Qui tam cases we are working on. This cuts down on the use of paper tremendously. We satisfy requests of those that prefer receiving paper instead of a PDF or file.

If our Florida Injury Law firm can take small steps in our business to help the environment, we encourage other firms to join in.  A few weeks ago, the wonderful Governor of Florida, attended a "Going Green" event in Palm Beach County sponsored by Palm Tran. It is nice to see that officials in Florida are trying to make the public aware of their efforts to improve the environment.

You too can make a difference and do your part for our environment.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A personal injury claim for a 2003 accident that left an ecologist with permanent brain injuries after a head on car accident, just resulted in a $5.3 million in a bad faith verdict against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company.

It is hard to believe that after being presented the facts of the brain injured 32-year old accident victim, the medical bills, video of the client having a seizure, a large insurance carrier with such  resources stalled in paying the Plaintiff's Under insured Motorist policy of $1.5 million for several years or her medical payments policy. Since the person at fault in the accident only had minimal coverage, the Plaintiff made a claim on her  personal Under insured Motorist Policy. (Side Note: Remember to check your personal insurance coverage for policy limits on Under insured and Uninsured Motorist coverage).

Samantha Chilcote's five-day trial, the unanimous bad faith verdict of $5.3 million awarded by the jury, sends a strong message to insurance Carriers and Insurance Adjusters about denying an injured accident victim's Under insured and Uninsured Motorist insurance claims. Although, we understand that there is a chance for the verdict to be modified by the Judge, the verdict still sends a strong message. 

Please take note that all insurance carriers do not are not like this when it comes to paying Under insured and Uninsured Motorist insurance claims. You can verify this with your personal Insurance Agent.

This case makes me wonder about Bad Faith verdicts for Personal Injury Claims in Florida. I will report my findings in future blog posts... A few immediately come to mind.. Stay tuned for a more comprehensive list of Bad Faith verdicts in Florida Personal Injury cases. 

To read more on this $5.3 Million Bad Faith Verdict against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, click here to read TRISTAN SCOTT's  Missoulian article .

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday we learned a hard lesson. We learned that juries are apt to disbelieve a Plaintiff. If there is any disjunction or conflict in the medical records the Plaintiff will not be given any benefit of the doubt. You must be a perfect Plaintiff because any thing the defense finds can and will be used to call you a liar and discredit your case. 

Let me explain: Recently we finished a 3-day trial. Our client was a middle-aged woman who sat in her car, stopped at a red light. The defendant, not paying attention, drove their small sporty car into the tailpipe of our client's mid-sized SUV. The damage totaled the defendant's car. The Plaintiff's SUV had almost no visible damages. (Let’s call that Strike One) The Plaintiff thought that she could handle the case alone and did not hire an attorney for some time after the accident. In that time she went to her own doctors and filled out her own medical information.

Our client proceeded to go back to her chiropractor because of the pain she had in her lower back. Prior to the accident, our client had a history of back pain but she was pain free for a year before the accident. Now, she was back in the chiropractor's office. The pain because so bad he referred her to a neurologist and then onto a neurosurgeon. The neurosurgeon said only surgery would help. Our client underwenta level one fusion of her spinal vertebrae. Unfortunately, in all the medical intake forms the client put down that she had no prior back problems (Let's call that Strike 2).

The client was not sales person. She was not able to articulate her pain to the jury. She was simply unable or unwilling to expound on her experience, to help the jury understand her pain. (Let's call that Strike 3).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a widely discussed article on Bloomberg.com, Judge Jack Weinstein, an outspoken U.S. District Judge  from New York, has stated that he does not want to allow patients and insurers who paid for Zyprexa for uses approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, to sue as a group. Further he does not feel that the purchasers of the Zyprexa drug are entitled to  claim punitive damages. The case ``ought to be settled,'' said the judge to both Plaintiff and Defense lawyers. "I really think that we're not dealing with very much money.''

In a blog post on the Pharmaceutical Blog Pharmalot, the author mentions that a lawyer for Zyprexa purchasers, is pushing for Judge Weinstein to certify classes of individual Zyprexa users and third-party payers, such as insurers. He believes that Zyprexa maker, Eli Lilly exaggerated the effectiveness of the drug; failed to adequately warn about side effects including weight gain, diabetes and other illnesses; and promoted Zyprexa for off-label use, including for treating elderly dementia patients and children.

Drug manufacturer, Eli Lilly has paid over $1billion to settle over 30,000 claims brought by patients stating they were not given adequate warning about the side effects of Zyprexa.

Judge Weinstein is supposed to issue a ruling sometime soon.. Everyone is waiting to see if justice will be served for the purchasers.  Stay tuned...

Bloggers for the Drug and Device Law Blog have some interesting comments on the subject. It is nice to see a healthy discussion between bloggers and readers...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The courts recently reached an unsettling decision for Plaintiffs involved in the St. Jude Heart Valve Class action when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a national class action certification in a defective products case. The decision called for each plaintiff to show a link between any reliance on St. Jude Medical Inc.  (Minnesota Supreme Court decision. St. Jude Medical, Inc., Silzone Heart Valve Prods. Liab. Litig, No. 06-3860, slip op. (8th Cir. Apr. 9, 2008).

According to a National Law Journal Article on Law.com, the lawsuit alleged that three years after their 1997 introduction, the St. Jude Medical Silzone heart valves were found to have a defective silver coating that made people sick. Lawsuits were filed that alleged St. Jude Medical was negligent in research and development of the valve and marketed it without proper research.

One has to agree with the plaintiff's attorney Capretz that "This is a very disturbing decision with several major implications", especially for the plaintiffs.

Stay tuned for more information on this court decision.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Allstate Corporation, one of the the nation's largest publicly held insurance companies, recently released approximately 150,000 pages of documents pertaining its review claim practices from the 1990s. Although, some media have regarded the documents as coming up short, according to a recent Times Picayune article.

On the opposite side of  the argument, the release of the documents by Allstate can be viewed as  Allstate's way of showing that they have nothing to hide. Undoubtedly, the Mckinsey documents issue will not go away for awhile, in light of the looming release of the new tell all book for the public by New Mexico attorney David Berardinelli, called "From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves: The Dark Side of Insurance."

An Allstate spokesperson, Rich Halberg, downplays the significance of the documents in a recent  Allstate press release, "When aired in the unbiased setting of a court of law, allegations about the documents have been shown to be without merit. Most recently, some of the documents were seen and explained in context to a jury during a two-week trial in Kentucky (Hager v. Allstate)."

The Hager v. Allstate case involved a rear-end automobile accident case that occurred in 1997. The Plaintiff, a 60 year old accident victim, sued Allstate for not paying claims related to the personal injury in the car accident and for allegedly violating Kentucky's Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. The outcome of the two week trial was for the Defendant, Allstate. According to several published reports, the jury came back with this verdict after deliberating for a short while. One can only wonder if the Jury took the Plaintiff seriously for asking for $1.425 Billion for what is typically referred to as a soft tissue injury.

Click here to view the extensive site of the Allstate "Claim Review" documents.  The site shares comprehensive information on Casualty Review, Homeowners Review, Auto Physical Damage Review and Field work Information.

We encourage the public to read the documents and let us know your opinion of the documents.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

A recent study from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety tested several mid-sized cars and rated most with marginal or poor ratings for rear-end collisions.  This is important to mention because rear-end collisions and and neck injuries are the most common injuries reported in automobile injury accidents. According to insurance reports, rear-end collisions account for nearly 2 million insurance claims each year, with an estimated cost of $8.5 billion. Although, neck injuries are not life-threatening, they often leave the injured accident victim with a lot of pain and are sometimes debilitating.

The Rear crash test rated protection in a two-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry — the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seats with good or acceptable restraint geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they can't be positioned to protect many people.

On a positive note, according to Institute senior vice president David Zuby, "The side impact results represent a huge change from just four years ago. "A major change is that auto manufacturers have been moving quickly to make side airbags standard, even on lower priced models."

In 2006, there were 42, 642 people killed in the 38, 588 fatal motor vehicle accidents, according to the Institute of Highway Safety. Florida was third in the nation in fatal motor vehicle accidents, with 3,374 reported deaths from 3,097 fatal accident crashes.  California was number one in the nation in automobile fatal accidents with 4,236 deaths and Texas came in second with  3,475 reported motor vehicle deaths.

According to a NHTSA FARS report, South Florida led the state in traffic fatalities by County, with Palm Beach County having 212 traffic fatalities, Broward County having 267 traffic fatalities and Miami Dade County having 367 traffic fatalities. It is important to mention that Palm Beach County traffic fatalities increased the most significantly in South Florida from prior years by nine percent. 

This makes the National Click it or Ticket Campaign, so important in saving lives on the roadway. During May 19 - June 1, 2008, law enforcement agencies join forces day and night, from coast-to-coast, for an enforcement blitz that delivers on our message “Click It or Ticket". The mobilization is supported by national and local paid advertising and earned media campaigns aimed at raising awareness before the blitz that ... Day or Night - Buckle Up or Pay Up.

The amazing nonprofit, Dori Slosberg Foundation has taken important steps in working with Florida law enforcement to ensure Florida's participation in this meaningful campaign.  Irv Slosberg and his dedicated team have tirelessly worked side by side with Florida law to ensure that we have the necessary representation on the roadways during this campaign. Although the campaign is only for a few weeks, prior year statistics show that traffic fatalities are decreased during this timeframe.

Click here to learn more about the Staying Alive on 95 event spearheaded by the Dori Slosberg Foundation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

ATV (All terrain Vehicles) are coming under fire for tougher safety and product liability laws from parents of a personal injury victim that died in  ATV related crash.

Ashley Phelps' life was cut short last year when the all-terrain vehicle she was a passenger on struck some mailboxes and rolled over. The driver, Gregory Hebert, then allegedly drove away, leaving the injured 21-year-old behind. Head injuries sustained as a result of the ATV crash caused Ashley's death.

According to the most recent CPSC Annual Report of ATV deaths and injuries for 2006, that was released in February 2008, there have been over 8100 deaths related to ATV crashes or ATV fatalities.  The state of Pennsylvania leads the nation in ATV fatalities with 420 total deaths from 1982 - 2006. The State California  comes in second with 418 ATV fatalities from the same period. In the state of Florida, there were 349 deaths as of result of ATV accidents.

Click here to read more from the AP and the Insurance Journal and Click here to read more from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on ATV Accidents, death and injuries.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Plaintiff's and Personal Injury lawsuits are coming under attack by the very controversial "Fake Bad Scale" Test.  The test is supposed to tell if someone is faking an illness, psychological symptoms and other injuries in personal injury claims and is mostly used by the defense to help battle plaintiff's personal injury claims.

According to a recent WSJ article:

The Focus: Helps spot litigants who may be feigning their injuries. 

Credibility: Use of test has grown since the test became part  of  Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. 

Controversy: Protests from some psychologists and plaintiffs' lawyers feel that the test identifies several real victims as possible fakers. Proponents of the test see the true-or-false test as valid to identify people faking pain, psychological symptoms or other ills to collect a payout.

The story generated a lot of interest around the web. Several bloggers picked up on it such as Law Dragon's Marc Lacter, SaundersBlog , Toxlaw.com, Law Beat Comments from Syracuse University's Carnegie Legal Reporting Program and the WSJ's Legal Blogger Dan Slater  
Dan Slater's post had the most interesting comments. Surprisingly for both sides of the argument.  

Kudo's to the WSJ to include such a controversial topic on page A1.  Hats off to the Murdoch owned newspaper for putting this topic front and center.  I wonder how many news outlets picked up on this test,  I am sure that this topic will be covered this weekend in news segments. 

Stay tuned... I will share any interesting news clips that dig more into the Fake Bad Scale Test.

Click here to read more from the WSJ on this test. (Note: Subscription required),

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks