Greenville Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Commented

Allstate Insurance Company Driven by Greed

Ric Davis — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 15:56:12 GMT

Allstate Insurance Co.'s phenomenal growth in profits is directly tied to its drastic reduction in claims payments: The insurer offers paltry sums for legitimate claims, counting on its customers' unwillingness to slog through drawn-out litigation. That's no dark secret or allegation. It's a company policy called "Claims Core Process Redesign," devised by powerhouse corporate consultants McKinsey & Co. Its bland-sounding name hides a relentless drive to maximize shareholder profits at the expense of Allstate's customers.

Insurance companies regularly plead poverty, blaming trial lawyers, natural disasters, and even their own policyholders for their allegedly falling fortunes. But a look at their ledgers shows they are misleading the public. The industry's profits are skyrocketing, its executives are getting huge bonuses, and earnings have hit record heights--all while these companies deny coverage to their own customers for everything from Katrina damage to car crashes.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Judge Sets Reduced Award in Vioxx Case

Harold Christian — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:14:16 GMT

Last year a jury awarded a Plaintiff 51 million dollars in damages against Merck because it's Vioxx painkiller was blamed for the heart attack of a former FBI agent. As reported in the New York Times, Judge E. Fallon, who is a federal district judge in the District Court of New Orleans and is responsible for overseeing all Vioxx litigation in federal courts, had previously granted a new trial to Merck, but instead awarded 1.6 million dollars for the Plaintiff. The award that the Judge issued for the FBI agent includes $600,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Merck had sought to have the entire verdict thrown out.

The Merck drug company manufactured a drug which was designed as a painkiller, and more specifically to combat arthritic conditions. Sadly, Merck placed this drug on the market without adequate testing, and also, without disclosing to the FDA that persons who took this drug on tests, had a higher incidence of heart attacks and strokes. Presently there are 27,000 lawsuits pending against Merck for claims of personal injury for this defective and hazardous drug.

In a related matter, a woman who blamed Vioxx as the cause of the heart attack that killed her husband, will be facing a third trial. Recenlty, the federal judge who oversees her case, ordered a third trial. The new trial is based on the fact that a cardiologist who had testified for Merck misrepresented his qualifications in the second trial which was held last year. Unfortunately, jurors in that trial had ruled in favor of Merck and against Mrs. Plunckett, whose first husband had died of a heart attack after taking Vioxx for less than a month. The first trial was held in Houston and had ended in a jury deadlock 8 to 1 in Merck's favor.

At this juncture Merck is vigorously contesting the wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits that have been filed because Vioxx caused heart attacks and stokes to persons who unsuspectingly took their painkiller, Vioxx. Merck's strategy at this point is to use their great wealth to outspend lawyers who represent the victims of this dangerous and defective drug.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Harold Christian

Frivolous Lawsuits?

Ric Davis — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:17:56 GMT

The “McDonald’s coffee” case. We have all heard it: a woman spills McDonald's coffee, sues and gets $3 million. Here are the facts of this widely misreported case:

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;
Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;
McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.”

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Workers Compensation Deform in South Carolina

Josh Christian — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:44:12 GMT

In an article in the Greenville newspaper yesterday the Governor and wealthy business men across the state gathered to sign the new South Carolina Workers Compensation Deform bill. Instead of trying to protect the hard working men and women who form the core values of our country, Governor Sanford has decided to protect profits and businesses. Injured workers will suffer across the state as a result of this bill.

The interesting thing about the article on the front page of the newspaper is that the injured worker and those who have been severely debilitated because of a work injury are missing from the picture. The Governor who is in the hip pockets of the big business and insurance company does not want to stop there as he pointed out:

While the bill also will "open the business playing field and consequently the job opportunities in the state," the workers' compensation system still needs further reform

Although who could blame Gov. Sanford as he has never held a real job in his life and would not know what it means to be a skilled worker injured on the job, he just wants to take rights away from the injured worker.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Workplace injuries and Discrimination.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Josh Christian

Construction Worker Crushed To Death In Accident

Chrissie Cole — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:19:00 GMT

A construction worker was killed today when he became crushed beneath the tractor-trailer that he was trying to free from the mud.

The accident happened just after 8:00 a.m. at Frederick Douglass Avenue, according to Glenn Rhoad, Berkeley County Coroner.

The Coroner declined to identify the man pending family notification. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The man was trying to help free a 18-wheeler hauling concrete pipes. The vehicle became stuck on the dirt road and the man was behind it, trying to hook a chain from the trailer to a bulldozer.

The driver of the 18-wheeler didn’t see him behind the trailer and put the truck in reverse, running him over, said Rhoad.

There will be no charges, the death is considered accidental.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

No Economic Incentive For Worker Safety?

Ric Davis — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:28:00 GMT

Economic incentives for worker safety are disappearing across the country. "Tort Reform" and workers compensation law reforms will continue to lead to devasting injuries as corporate america makes decisons soley based on economic reasons. Cases like the scaffolding deaths in Arkansas will fill our newspapers as the remanants of tort reform spread.

In Arkansas, two construction companies and a project supervisor were to blame for a scaffolding collapse that killed two men working above the Arkansas River. A lawsuit was filed Monday. According to the lawsuit, filed by the families of the men, Oscar Renda Contracting Inc., SAC Manufacturing Inc and foreman Charles Jackson knew that the work site was dangerous and failed to ensure that scaffolding was safe. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and medical, funeral and burial expenses. Schulyer Dixon, Houston Chronicle 04/21/2008.

Read more about this case: Houston Chronicle

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Safety of Construction Sites

Ric Davis — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:06:00 GMT

A New York building, under construction, where seven workers died after a crane collapse, violated multiple zoning regulations. According to local residents and politicians, the city buildings department ignored questions about the building’s height long after it had already granted permits for the site. Complaints about the departments conduct are not limited to one building. So far this year, 13 fatalities have occurred at construction sites in the city, up from 12 in 2007. Charles V. Bagli and Diane Cardwell, The New York Times 04/22/2008.

Once again, safety was a secondary consideration.

Read the Article: The New York Times

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Employment Related Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Unfair

Ric Davis — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:59:00 GMT

The majority of employment related arbitration agreements put workers in the unenviable position of choosing between employment opportunities and constitutional rights to take lawbreaking employers to court. Due to such circumstances, almost everyone except big business generally opposes mandatory arbitration agreements.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Maximum Weekly Workers Compensation Rate In South Carolina

Ric Davis — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:20:00 GMT

The South Carolina Employment Security Commission has certified that the average weekly wage in South Carolina for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 was $661.29. Accordingly, for accidents that occur on or after January 1, 2008, the maximum weekly compensation rate, which according to Section 42-9-10 is to be “no more than the average weekly wage in this State for the preceding fiscal year,” shall be $661.29.

This raises the maximum weekly compensation rate by $15.35, 2.4% greater than the 2007 rate of $645.94. An individual’s compensation rate equals 66⅔% of an individual’s average weekly wage, not to exceed the average weekly wage in South Carolina as determined by the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. In terms of total disability for 500 weeks, the maximum compensation award for 2008 will be $330,645. Generally, an individual must have earned $51,555 annually ($991.44 weekly) or more during the four quarters immediately preceding the quarter in which an accident occurs in order to be paid at the maximum compensation rate.

Compensations Rates Since 1978

1/1/08	$661.29
1/1/07	$645.94
1/1/06	$616.48
1/1/05	$592.56
1/1/04	$577.73
1/1/03	$563.55
1/1/02	$549.42
1/1/01	$532.77
1/1/00	$507.34
1/1/99	$483.47
1/1/98	$465.18
1/1/97	$450.62
1/1/96	$437.79
1/1/95	$422.48
1/1/94	$410.26
1/1/93	$393.06
1/1/92	$379.82
1/1/91	$364.37
1/1/90	$350.19
1/1/89	$334.87
1/1/88	$319.20
1/1/87	$308.24
1/1/86	$294.95
1/1/85	$287.02
1/1/84	$268.99
1/1/83	$254.38
1/1/82	$235.00
1/1/81	$216.00
1/1/80	$197.00
1/1/79	$185.00

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

How to report an on-the-job injury?

Ric Davis — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:31:04 GMT

Report all injuries at work to your employer immediately and request medical treatment, if needed. If you neglect to report the injury within 90 days of the accident you may lose your benefits.

Although you must report the injury within 90 days, you have up to two years to file a claim for benefits. If a worker dies because of work-related injuries, the worker’s dependents, or parents if there are no dependents, must file a claim within two years of the death to claim benefits.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis