Greenville Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous - Most Popular

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

Access to Civil Justice Will Motivate Voters

Ric Davis — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:40:10 GMT

A national poll of 2008 voters by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. reveals voters have anxiety concerning corporate misconduct. There is large support among voters for a strong civil justice system to ensure corporate accountability and fairness. A memo summarizing the poll's findings concludes:

Americans are deeply worried about their nation's future, and concern about corporate misconduct is a major source of their anxiety. "Worried swing voters," who see corporate irresponsibility as a central problem, may play a pivotal role in the 2008 election.

Voters support the civil justice system as an important remedy for corporate misconduct, and reject legal "reforms" that restrict plaintiffs' ability to hold corporations accountable and obtain fair restitution.

Voters will support candidates who defend the civil system over candidates who assail "frivolous lawsuits" and advocate "tort reform." Pro-civil justice candidates not only command overwhelming support from swing voters, but also appeal to significant blocks of Republicans.
"This poll demonstrates overwhelming voter support for a civil justice system ensuring that those who have been injured by the wrongdoing or negligence of others can receive justice and fair compensation - even when taking on the most powerful interests," said American Association for Justice CEO Jon Haber. "It shows wide support among voters for a vital civil justice system continuing to provide a level playing field for people to hold corporations accountable when they seek to evade responsibility for their misconduct.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

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

Disclaimer

Staff Writer — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:14:27 GMT

The information found on this website should not be construed as legal advice and is not a substitute for professional legal consultation. You should not base your legal decisions solely on the information found in this site and you are encouraged to seek the counsel of an attorney regarding your specific questions or situation.

The information found herein may represent the opinions or commentary of the site editor(s) and is for informational or education purposes only. You agree by using this site that no attorney/client relationship has been formed between you and the attorneys, editors, owners, or participants in this site unless and until a written agreement has been signed between you and your attorney.

We cannot guarantee that you will receive a response to any inquiry you submit through this site. If you believe you have a legal claim, please be aware that there are deadlines and statutes of limitation which must be met or you may lose your opportunity to pursue your claim. Time is of the essence and we urge you to act. If you do not find help through this site, seek immediate assistance elsewhere.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

FDA Warns About Fentanyl Again

Jenny Albano — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:45:00 GMT

The FDA warned, for the second time in two years, that improper use of the fentanyl patch, a painkiller, is still claiming lives. Some of the deaths were due to doctors prescribing the patch to the wrong patients.

The drug is supposed to be used for chronic pain for patients who are used to narcotics, but some doctors were prescribing the drug to patients with headaches or for post-surgery pain. Patients are also accidentally overdosing from the drug by using it incorrectly; some patients put on more than one patch, change them too often, or get them too hot.

The FDA first warned about improper use of the patches in 2005, when it announced it was investigating 120 deaths among users. The agency didn't immediately say how many more deaths it had learned of since that warning. But the FDA said Friday it had ordered makers of all fentanyl patches to create special "medication guides" for patients that spell out the dangers of overdoses and improper use in easy-to-understand language.

Some of the warning include: the patch can cause trouble breathing, the patch is only for round-the-clock moderate to severe pain, the patch should not be the first narcotic a patient takes, do not do anything that would increase your heat, etc.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on FDA and Prescription Drugs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jenny Albano

Elimination of Contingent Fees: A Threat to Democracy

Ric Davis — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:37:47 GMT

Contingent fees continue to stir great controversy especially in class action cases, mass torts, and medical malpractice lawsuits. The controversy most recently gained national attention when President Bush banned contingency fees in cases filed by the U.S Government. Federal judges have called contingent fees "grotesque" and plaintiffs claim they will be denied access to the courts without them. The debate remains lively among plaintiff and defense lawyers, academics, the judiciary, insurance companies, the Chamber of Commerce and the general public. Recent legislation and efforts to amend state constitutions to limit contingent fees have been successful. Is there a problem with contingent fees?

Do plaintiff's lawyers reap a windfall when enormous fees are awarded? What are the real risks undertaken by plaintiff's counsel and does the risk justify the reward? Are contingent fee awards out of whack? Who will benefit or suffer if they are restricted or eliminated?

These issues will be discussed at the ABA Convention in August in San Francisco. The contingent fee system has been in place for over 200 years and is a pillar of our system of justice. While the debate should be healthy, ultimately policy makers need to remember that without access to our judicial system, our system of justice which is synonymous with freedom and democracy will cease to exist.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Confidence Restored in Jury System

Josh Christian — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:32:38 GMT

This week in South Carolina the jury system established by our founding fathers once again has proven its self to be a successful tool for justice. In two separate cases, juries in Marion County and Spartanburg County, have restored confidence in the jury system by delivering justice to injured plaintiffs.

In Marion County a injured plaintiff sought damages for injuries which they received in an automobile collision. Although the insurance company refused to fairly compensate the injured person (who had approximately $3,500.00 in medical bills) a jury, who viewed all the evidence, decided that their community would lose accountability for wrongs caused by others if they did not return a verdict for the plaintiff, which they did in the amount of $27,000.00.

Similarly, in Spartanburg County, when Allstate refused to properly evaluate and compensate an injured person, who was hit by a drunk driver, the jury decided that Allstate was wrong and that the injured person needed to be compensated. The jury likely determined that in failing to properly compensate the injured person the community would suffer the loss of accountability and justice and rendered a verdict in the amount of $85,000.00.

Thanks to the men and women who serve on juries like these wrong doers are held accountable and the insurance industry is held accountable to their insureds.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Josh Christian

Tort Reform Funded by Big Tobacco

Ric Davis — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:47:16 GMT

About a decade ago, the folks at the Center for Media and Democracy decided to delve into front groups that parade as citizen initiatives. Their Source Watch is one great resource. Just look at "tort reform" Their documents show the early reach of Tobacco Giant Philip Morris in the creation of the Institute for Legal Reform, today the premier organization that has helped further the so-called tort-reform movement.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce created the Institute and so far has spent about $200 million convincing average citizens that "greedy trial lawyers" are ruining their lives, their savings and their doctor's lives. They have craftily used phony front groups.

But Source Watch tells us that central to the early Philip Morris' efforts was secrecy. Internal documents show that in order to be effective, media activities promoting tort reform, "must not be linked to the tobacco industry." And on page 6 of this internal memo, that trial lawyers would be targeted and woven into all media efforts. CMD is a non-profit that not only could use your attention, but also your support. I believe they are a great and much needed resource in these shady times.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Defective Defibrillators(2)

Josh Christian — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:46:59 GMT

Guidant defibrillators have been the causeof many innocent victims serious health problems and even death. A recent article discusses the new development in these product liability lawsuits.

As is pointed out in this article the manufacturers of the defibrillators were more interested in profits than in those who were trusting them with their lives.

The Guidant story is a sorry example of a corporation seemingly overtaken by greed, growth and a bottom-line mentality at the expense of thousands of Americans believing that their Guidant defibrillator, or pacemaker, would be their ticket to better health, rather than a threat to their well being.

It is expected that more lawsuits will follow.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Josh Christian

Toxic Lead Paint Leads to Toy Recall

Ric Davis — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:07:48 GMT

According to the Assoiciated Press, a massive toy recall could have millions of parents taking their children's favorite toys away. On Wednesday, RC2 Corp. recalled about 1.5 million Thomas the Tank Engine wooden railway toys in Canada and the United States, due to concerns that the paint used on them may contain lead. Thomas the Tank Engine is a wildly popular toy among young children, especially boys. The toy recall includes wooden vehicles, buildings and other train set parts imported and distributed by RC2 Corp. The toys in question were sold from January 2005 through June 2007. They were manufacturered in China.

Toys marked with the letters WJ or AZ are not included in the recall. Patty Davis with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission says lead can be toxic if ingested by children. This is a classic example of inadequate consumer product regulation in China. Its impact on the children in the Untited States is yet unmeasured, and there maybe no redress againstthe Chinese manufacturer. Action against the Untited States distributors may be the only remedy available for harm caused to children. Whle our citizens and vicims rights are under attack in Washington by insurance companies and large corporate wrongdoers, currently we still have legal avenues available to protect innocent children from harm causd by those such as the Chinese manufacturing industry and their distributors in the US.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis