Missouri Injury Law Blog

Currently we are representing the victim of medical malpractice in St Louis Missouri, she was completely paralyzed after a cervical pain injection hit her artery taking the medication (depo medrol) to her spinal cord and brain, where it caused lesions and serious nerve damage. For several months she was completely paralyzed from the chest down, thankfully, she has made great strides since then but still faces many daily challenges. Unfortunately, she still walks with a severe limp and has no feeling from the waist down causing hardship on a daily basis.

The depo medrol being injected into the artery can be seen in the fluoroscope image (above right), the flaring shows the medicine being transported in the artery.

A few lawyers told her she did not have a case, I have heard this before, in fact, my largest multimillion dollar medical malpractice settlement (4.5 million) was for a Missouri medical malpractice case that several previous lawyers though was not a case; expertise and experience in the medical legal arena is key to evaluating a case. That case ended up being the largest reported Missouri medical malpractice settlement in Missouri for 2007 and settled for a whopping $4,500,000.00 about 1 month prior to trial.

After meeting with the client is this case I immediately knew she had a case and was determined to find the medical evidence and experts to support her case. Within just a few short months we had two specialists that 100% agree with me.

In this case, the patient received a depo medrol shot that was supposed to go into the nerve root and block the pain signal that was being sent to her brain. The St Louis MO medical negligence occurred when the pain injection doctor not only hit the artery, but then injected the depo medrol into that artery, carrying the medication to the spinal cord and frontal lobe of the brain and killing nerves and cells, thus resulting in serious spinal cord injuries and brain injuries resulting in permanent partial paralysis.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice , Our Injury Cases

Bookmark:

My client suffered serious injury as the result of an Illinois motorcycle accident outside of the Belleville Illinois area in St Clair County, Illinois. She was the passenger on the back of a motorcycle when the driver lost control of the bike and the next thing she knows is that she wakes up in the hospital several days later.

After months of investigation, we discovered that the facts of the case were that my Illinois personal injury client was invited to a party where she knew only a few people, the driver of the bike borrowed the motorcycle from the owner who was hosting the party, she rode along and the motorcycle driver lost control, crashed the motorcycle and knocked her out. The owner or the driver took her to a hospital several hours away as the driver of the motorcycle or the owner had a relative that worked at the hospital. This relative made sure the cops were not called and that the people who dropped the injured victim off were not identified or reported. This falls under the category of an Illinois uninsured motorist claim or lawsuit as the driver or operator of the motor vehicle is unidentified.

Being an Illinois uninsured motorist claim my client must make a claim through her insurance for uninsured motorist coverage. In many states Uninsured motorist coverage is implied as at least to match the minimum liability coverage allowed by law even if the policy holder does not have a specific uninsured motorist coverage policy. Almost every insurance policy has the minimum uninsured motorist coverage stated as part of the coverage.

As stated in previous entries on this blog, uninsured motorist coverage follows the person not the vehicle. In this particular case, my client was insured by a Missouri insurance policy with Shelter insurance. Shelter insurance now includes an exclusionary clause under its uninsured motorist coverage section; this clause states that uninsured motorist coverage only applies to personal injury resulting from an automobile accident. Now this sounds harmless on its face, however, Shelter Insurance takes it a step further to define an automobile as a motorized vehicle with four or more wheels. Thus, they are denying my client uninsured motorist claim because it occurred as a result of an uninsured motorcyclist as opposed to a driver of a car or truck.

One of the purposes of having uninsured motorist coverage is to cover an insured in case they are struck by a phantom vehicle or by a vehicle or driver that has no insurance. That way there is still some redress despite the at fault driver having no insurance or money to cover the personal injury loss. In this case, Shelter is trying to get around well settled public policy decisions by the court by defining an automobile to mean four or more wheels. So under a previous example of a pedestrian getting hit by a car and the driver fleeing with no one able to get any identifying information, clearly that would be covered by the pedestrian's uninsured motorist coverage. Now change one fact, instead of a car, the pedestrian is struck by a motorcycle that flees and is unidentified. Now the pedestrian is left with zero recourse according to Shelter even though they were responsible and had uninsured motorist coverage.

This is an issue that will go to the courts as it appears it has not been preciously decided and I will update this blog regarding important Illinois uninsured motorist motorcycle accident claim issues as this and other cases I am handling progress.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Motorcycle Accidents , Our Injury Cases

Bookmark:

As a personal injury lawyer based in St Louis, I know first hand that one of my clients' top concerns is insurance liability coverage usually stated to me as "what or whose insurance applies to cover my injury?" There are several types of insurance coverage to indemnify an injured victim in a Missouri car accident. The primary one every driver is supposed to have under Missouri law is liability coverage, which Missouri state law requires a minimum of 25/50. This 25/50 means $25,000 per individual or $50,000 limit if 2 or more individuals are injured.

Oftentimes this 25/50 coverage this is not enough, thus it is a very good idea to have Missouri under insured motorist coverage (commonly referred to as "UIM" coverage") to protect yourself if another driver carrying the state minimum of $25,000 causes injury to you or a family member that justifies a Missouri injury or insurance claim in excess of $25,000. Therefore, if you carry a $100,000 Missouri under insured policy then there is an additional $75,000 an injured victim can recover if the at fault driver only carried state minimums or an amount less then your under insured coverage.

What if the other driver had no insurance or fled the scene? Then that would usually be a claim under Missouri Uninsured Motorist coverage (commonly referred to as "UM"coverage"). Everyone that is insured in Missouri automatically carries a minimum of $25,000 of uninsured motorist coverage in Missouri as this is required by Missouri state law. It is based on the view that it is against public policy to carry the minimum liability coverage and not have a minimum uninsured motorist coverage. However, as a Missouri personal injury lawyer, I have seen countless situations where clients wished they carried more than $25,0000 of uninsured motorist coverage, I recommend to anyone to carry the maximum of both uninsured motorist coverage and under insured motorist coverage.

Here are a few fact examples from Missouri and Illinois injury cases I am currently handling.

Jefferson county personal injury client allows her friend to drive her car, the friend loses control, runs off the road and crashes into a tree. What policy covers my client for her injuries? In most cases her insurance policy that she had on the car because by allowing her friend to drive it is a "permissive use" thus the policy on the car applies. Now, this is not true in every situation and sometimes specific facts may change which Missouri insurance policy coverage applies.

Different situation, I currently am handling a St Louis city motorcycle accident case that arose from an uninsured motorist striking a motorcyclist and his passenger. Both the driver of the motorcycle and the passenger have their own insurance policies on different vehicles including the motorcycle for the driver only. Usually, under this scenario the Missouri Uninsured Motorist policy for each one of their vehicle applies. Therefore the driver makes a UM claim under his motorcycle policy as well as under his UM policy coverage for his other vehicles, as UM coverage also covers the named insured. The passenger is making a Missouri uninsured motorist claim under the drivers motorcycle policy as well as the policy on her primary vehicle. This brings up many other issues such as stacking, anti-stacking clauses, set off clauses, and other exclusionary clauses the insurance companies use to limit their exposure in cases such as these.

Often clients don't understand exactly why coverage for a car or vehicle that was not involved in a Missouri car collision could apply. Simple example clears that up. Say you are crossing the street and a driver runs a red light, hits you, and flees the scene. No one gets any type of identification on the driver or the vehicle. This is a Missouri uninsured motorist claim and the coverage you have on your vehicle or vehicles will apply for your to make a claim against as if they represented the driver himself. Cars are not covered by Missouri uninsured motorist policies, people are. The property damage portion of the Missouri insurance policy covers damage to cars or other vehicles.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Bicycle Accidents , Motorcycle Accidents , Our Injury Cases

Bookmark: