Missouri Injury Law Blog

Most people outside the personal injury legal profession and liability insurance often do not understand the nature of the parties' relationships when a claim is made against someone for negligence. For example, lets take a Missouri car accident that results in an injury and a driver was negligent. When a personal injury claim is made (the "claimant" or "Plaintiff"), the insurance company for the at fault driver (the "insured" or "Defendant") handles it, if the personal injury claim cannot be settled and the at fault driver is sued the insurance company appoints a lawyer. More times than not, the law firm or lawyer appointed by the insurance company handles many cases for that particular insurance company; however, their ethical and legal duty is to represent the at fault driver or the "insured", that is their client, not the insurance company. This is a line that is all too often blurred in favor of the best interests of the insurance company rather than the insured. Moreover, the insurance company has a duty to defend in good faith and indemnify the insured for any settlement or judgment.

So what does it mean to defend in "good faith", quite simply, it means that the insurance company has a duty to consider the insured's interests and if those interests conflict with the insurance company's interests, good faith obligates the insurance company to sacrifice its interests in favor of the insured's. This was discussed by the Missouri Supreme Court in Zumwalt v. Utilities Insurance Company, 228 SW2d 750 (MO 1950) and affirmed by a recent case which upheld a bad faith judgment against Allstate Insurance Company for a little over 16 million dollars after they refused to settle a Missouri drunk driving case with severe injuries for policy limits of $50,000. See Johnson v. Allstate Insurance Company, 262 SW3d 658 (Mo App Ct WD 2008).

The Johnson case is a perfect example of bad faith by an insurance company involving a Missouri personal injury claim resulting from a Missouri drunk driving collision and subsequent lawsuit. The insured, Davis, had twice the legal limit and struck a car head on when he crossed the center line, both passengers in the other vehicle spent many weeks in the hospital and almost died. Several weeks after the accident the claimants/Plaintiffs were willing to settle the case for $50,000, Davis' (the insured's) policy limits, thus relieving him of any other potential judgment or legal action, done case should have been closed. However, Allstate failed to respond for several months to the demand for a case that was an obvious policy limits case. The demand expired after 60 days because Allstate would not pay its policy limits, why? they were looking out for Allstate rather than their insured. Even if the injuries were not that severe, a drunk driver is open to serious liability after a motor vehicle accident causing injury. The potential for high liability due to the reckless conduct of the drunk driver should have been enough for Allstate to tender policy limits to protect their insured.

So who brings the bad faith claim? In most cases the claimant or Plaintiff takes an assignment of the cause of action from the insured or defendant in exchange for a promise not to try and collect from the insured or defendant personally and just go after the insurance company because they refused to settle the case when they had an opportunity. Under Missouri and Illinois bad faith, the insurance company is liable for any judgment in excess of the policy limits if they refused to settle the case when they had the opportunity and enough information to justify resolving the case for such an amount.

This is a necessary and reasonable tool for Plaintiffs and insureds to have, without it large insurance companies would use their financial clout and resources to spend all victims of personal injury, with viable claims, out of legitimate claims to protect their bottom line and to the determent of victims and their insureds.

Currently we are handling several Missouri and Illinois serious injury claims arising from drunk driving accident wherein the insurance companies are using delay tactics and acting in bad faith while the victims, my clients, are the targets of medical bill collectors, some are close to poverty because their injuries left them with the inability to work, and their lives are forever changed for the worse. These case were previously mentioned int his blog and will be updated:

Good Samaritan struck by drunk driver, severely injured, partial disability

Illinois Drunk Driving Accident - Drunk Truck Driver Severely Injures 4 Teenagers - traumatic brain injuries.

Illinois Drunk Driving Accident Lawsuit - High Speed Rear End Collision at Intersection - Driver Pleads Guilty to DUI

In this above immediately above, we demanded policy limits, Allstate rejected, several months later during the defendant/insured's deposition he testified that he was completely unaware my client had demanded policy limits or that she was willing to settle with in his policy limits. A key indicator of Bad Faith by the insurance company for failure to inform their insured of a settlement offer within auto insurance policy limits. Clear evidence of Allstate looking out for themselves, not their insured. "Good hands", sure they are.

Also, excellent article summarizing Illinois Bad Faith Insurance Law

Illinois Bad Faith Law - Insurance Company refusal to settle - another excellent article regarding bad faith insurance law in Illinois

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

Posted In: Injury Law

Bookmark:

For about a week myself and other personal injury lawyers were waiting to see the President's speech to the AMA in Chicago, IL today. For about a week there have been concerns that Obama would advocate limitations on medical malpractice cases in order to get the AMA to support his health care initiatives.

Today, I was relieved when I heard him say the following:

"[...] I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That’s how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care.”

Personal injury trial lawyers are usually painted as the special interest group that does not want any limitation on injury lawsuits. This is true as personal injury lawyers are the only group that advocate for those who may be harmed in the future. Individuals and families that have never been affected by medical mistakes usually see this issue as lawyer greed, however, those same people realize the importance of the issue of patient rights and justice as soon as their lives are touched by it.

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

Recently, a Missouri personal injury defendant sought an order by the trial court compelling the Plaintiff to sign an authorization allowing the defendant's counsel to meet with Plaintiff's treating doctor without the plaintiff or any of their representatives present, as the doctor refused to do so without an authorization. The case went to the Western District Court of Appeals on a writ of prohibition, the Court ruled yesterday that a personal injury plaintiff cannot be compelled to sign an authorization consenting to an ex parte communication with their treating physician.

The court found "nothing in the discovery rules which gives the circuit court the authority to compel a
party to sign a medical authorization form when informal discovery is involved. Of course, a
party may consent to signing a medical authorization form during informal discovery, but the
circuit court cannot force a party to do so."

The full opinion is available here: Ex rel. Collins v Roldan

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

Posted In: Injury Law

Bookmark:

Currently, I am representing an Illinois personal injury victim that suffered severe injury to his nose after being struck in the face when using a defective log splitter. See - Illinois Products Liability Personal Injury - Nose Injury & Loss of Smell.

My client lost his sense of smell as a direct result of the defective product. The case is currently in settlement negotiations, however, if we are not able to resolve the case we will be proceeding with a lawsuit. This is not a common injury, so a little research revealed some substantial verdicts and settlements wherein loss of smell was a primary injury.

$500,000 awarded to man who loses sense of smell as result of a fall down an Elevator shaft (http://www.siaccident.com/CM/Custom/Results.asp)

$1.2 MILLION. Recovery for emotional difficulties and loss of sense of smell and taste
Plaintiff carpenter fell six-feet from a scaffold, striking his head on the floor. Although diagnostic tests, including an MRI, did not show a brain injury, the plaintiff's family noticed a change in his behavior, and he complained of emotional difficulties and a loss of sense of smell and taste. (http://www.accidentslawyernewyork.com/verdicts-settlements)

$850,000 obtained for plaintiff
Woman strikes head in a car accident causing frontal subdural hematoma resulting in loss of sense of smell.
(http://www.gellerandsiegel.com/CM/Custom/Verdicts-Settlements.asp )

$12,000,000.00 ZICAM maker settles lawsuit over User’s Loss of Smell

Class action lawsuit alleging varying loss of smell for about 300 users.
(http://www.thedenverchannel.com/7newsinvestigates/6279576/detail.html)

$600,000 products liability settlement for loss of smell
Truck driver whose primary injury was the loss of his sense of smell. The truck driver claimed a design defect in a milk truck because it failed to provide a grab handle on the rear driver's side of the truck.
(http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/2006/06/600000_settlement_in_products.html )

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Products Liability / Dangerous Products

Bookmark:

If you are not a personal injury lawyer the first question you may have is what does Res Ipsa Loquitur mean and what does it have to do with personal injury law or Missouri medical malpractice?

Res Ipsa Loquitur is Latin for "the thing speaks for itself." It is a legal doctrine which dictates that when a personal injury occurs and there is no way the personal injury could have happened in the absence of negligence, then the injured victim does not have to prove a specific act of negligence.

Res Ipsa, under Missouri law, is an evidentiary rule allowing the jury to infer that a loss or injury was caused by a negligent act of the defendant, without requiring the victim to prove a specific act or acts of negligence.

Generally, res ipsa was not allowed for Missouri medical malpractice cases (except for very limited exceptions) until just recently after the Missouri Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in Sides v St Anthony's Medical Center, 258 S.W. 3d 811 (Mo. 2008). The Sides court ruled res ipsa is possible for all med mal cases as long as the following res ipsa elements are present and a medical expert testifies to such:

(a) the occurrence resulting in injury was such as does not ordinarily happen if those in charge use due care;
(b) the instrumentality involved was under the management and control of the defendant; and
(c) the defendant possesses superior knowledge or means of information as to the cause of the occurrence.

Now tort deform advocates try to argue that res ipsa allows a "presumption" of negligence and allows personal injury lawyers to unfairly target doctors. This is absolutely not true. It allows only an "inference" which still must be proven by the Plaintiff as more likely than not to have been below the standard of care and the proximate cause of the injury or loss.

An obvious example of why this is necessary: if you undergo an operation and wake up with a surgical device left in your body, you may not be able to prove the specific act (i.e. negligent doctor used the device, put it in the body, and forgot to take it out) because you were unconscious and maybe you see nothing about the device being left in you noted in the records as you have no control over them. Clearly, someone was negligent. The personal injury medical malpractice victim should not be forced to prove a specific act of negligence if there is no evidence of it. A surgical tool is not left in your body without someone being negligent. There are many cases that are not as clear and obvious as the example above; however, if a medical expert testifies that a particular result does not occur in the absence of negligence, then there is a submissible cause of action in Missouri for medical negligence.

Clearly, in the medical malpractice field this was a greatly needed victims' right issue, as health care providers possess much superior knowledge to what is going on in the operating room and the defendant is often the only witness to the negligence, which can easily be distorted or simply left out of the defendant's report. Trust me, this DOES happen more often than you may think. I have personally had doctors and nurses admit this to me off the record on several occasions.

Current Missouri medical malpractice case we are pursuing on a res ipsa theory as all the evidence of negligence was within the control of the defendant.

Example of Missouri Medical Malpractice Petition alleging Res Ipsa

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

In January 2009 around 4:30 p.m. a Missouri personal injury insurance claim and possible lawsuit arose when my client was traveling on North Lindbergh when he notice a car slowly rolling onto the center median curb with the driver slumped over the wheel. Concerned for the driver's safety as my client though he was having a heart attack he got out of his car to assist the driver. The driver's side window was down so he reached in and put the car in park and see if he could assist the driver. When my client asked the driver if he was alright he regained consciousness, and it quickly became clear that he was severely intoxicated. The drunk driver got angry and claimed my client was trying to get him in trouble as the emergency vehicles were approaching, thus the St Louis Missouri drunken driver sped off dragging my client along with him for several yards or more till he broke loose. My client sustained severe personal injuries including serious injury to his knee, back, neck shoulders, and not to mention the emotional trauma.

The driver was arrested a few blocks down after trying to hide in a strip mall and charged with DWI. The day I was retained as the victim's personal injury lawyer we investigated the driver's record and discovered not only that he was driving on a revoked license and without insurance, but that he also had multiple DWI guilty pleas.

Most likely the other driver is what we call judgment proof, meaning a civil judgment for money against him is worthless as he has no assets to satisfy the judgment. Luckily, the personal injury victim in this case had Missouri car insurance and thus as required under Missouri personal injury law the policy must have a minimum $25,000 coverage for injuries sustained as the result of an uninsured motorist. Moreover, in this case my client was wise enough to pay for a $100,000 uninsured motorist policy that applied to at least two cars, thus under Missouri injury law the two $100,000 uninsured motorist policies may be able to be "stacked" and thus increasing the maximum coverage for this personal injury loss to $200,000 for uninsured motorist coverage.

Uninsured motorist coverage applies to the insured or the person, not the vehicle. This is why pedestrians that may be nowhere near their vehicle can make an uninsured motorist claim if they are injured as the result of the negligence or recklessness of an uninsured motorist.

I have represented many people that have suffered very serious injuries as the result of an uninsured or under insured motorist; all of those people now know that the few extra bucks it costs a year to raise under insured and uninsured motorist coverage limits in well worth the small policy premium increase.

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

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

Bookmark:

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: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

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: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Motorcycle Accidents

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

Bookmark:

In August 2007 I posted an article about a new personal injury case wherein I was retained to represent several victims of a drunk driving car accident near Quincey Illinois. See Prior Entry Pertaining to this Illinois Drunk Driving (DUI) Car Accident and Injury

Recently, I (along with another Illinois personal injury attorney) filed a lawsuit against the intoxicated teenage drivers of two vehicles as well as the car dealership that loaned the vehicle to one of the drivers. The Illinois drunk driving car accident severely injured all of the passengers of one car that was in front of a large pick up truck. The drivers of the two vehicles were both intoxicated and were racing down a country highway when the lead car slammed on her brakes as she realized she just passed the entrance to a road that led to the party they were heading to.

Both drivers were issued citations for traffic violations and alcohol related charges; one driver plead guilty to DUI, thus locking up liability. All of the injured passengers were airlifted to hospitals for immediate treatment. Injuries range from debilitating traumatic brain and spine injuries creating an ongoing cognitive deficiencies for one passenger. He continues to have epileptic symptoms and memory problems (to name only a few of his injuries) to the extent that he is medically unable to drive and likely to be put on social security disability due to his permanent and totally debilitating brain injury resulting from the Illinois motor vehicle collision. The other passengers suffered injuries ranging from a fractured pelvis to severe injuries to their knees and spine injuries. All of the passengers suffered permanent injuries that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. As an experienced Illinois personal injury lawyer, I have seen unfortunate cases like this before, however, unlike many cases, fortunately there is ample insurance coverage to compensate the Plaintiffs as the insurance for both drivers and the auto dealer will apply. As a Missouri and Illinois personal injury attorney I have seen individuals and families decimated by these types of serious injuries and to add insult to injury, the at fault party has minimum insurance coverage and no financial resources to justify pursuing the case beyond the insurance coverage.

The Illinois personal injury lawsuit was recently filed and a partially redacted copy (to protect the identity of my clients) is available here: Illinois personal injury lawsuit - drunk driver - Punitive damages - Negligent Entrustment by Auto Dealer

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

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

Bookmark:

See article discussing potential claims or lawsuits arising from St Louis Missouri premise liability resulting from Arch tram cable snapping. St Louis Countian Article 8/11/2008 by Kelly Wiese - Article regarding St Louis Personal Injury Lawsuits and analysis by attorney Ben Sansone.

"Last summer, as tourists were being carried up to see the view from atop the Gateway Arch, a cable snapped in the tram, knocking out power and trapping visitors for a few hours.

With a new report out blaming the National Park Service and its contractors for the cable problem, some are watching to see if litigation starts popping up.

A search of court records in both St. Louis Circuit Court and the federal Eastern District of Missouri court did not reveal any lawsuits filed so far against either the National Park Service, as the Arch grounds are a national park, or Metro, which operates the trams. The park's deputy superintendent, Frank Mares, also said it has not been sued over the cable break.

Personal injury lawyer Benjamin Sansone of St. Louis said he wasn't aware of any lawsuits filed over the accident at this point, but noted the report might be just the ticket for a lawyer with a borderline case.

"Now you've got this report from a third party saying somebody did something wrong: You just made my job a lot easier," he said.

Such a case likely would be filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, he said. The good news there for plaintiff lawyers is the statute of limitations is two years, so people involved in the July 2007 incident still have time. Sansone also said it does not appear the park service would be protected by sovereign immunity if a lawyer could prove some negligence.

"The cable broke. That tells me someone did something wrong," he said.

Under the tort claims act, a person would first file a claim with the federal agency, which has six months to investigate and either deny or settle the claim. After that, a plaintiff can bring suit in federal court.

"There's a case there. Now the whole issue is whether or not the damages justify the pursuit of that," he said.

Sansone said in a case like this, without much physical injury, it could be hard to bring a claim for emotional distress. He said he would not accept the case if a potential client came to him without physical harm but claiming emotional distress and nightmares from the event. But, he said, other lawyers certainly could try.

And more than the people stuck inside the Arch could have reason to seek to recoup something.

Metro, which runs the trams, is looking at its options to recoup lost revenue from the eight-month period when one of the two trams was shut down for repairs. Justin Struttmann, director of operations at the Arch for Metro, said the agency was waiting for the report to be complete to start figuring its claims.

"We are pursuing our options with our insurance company for our business interruption claim," he said.

According to the Gateway Arch Web site, about 1 million visitors ride to the top in a typical year. Last year it was less than 800,000 because of the closing, park officials said. Tram tickets for adults are $10 apiece; children are $3 to $7.

"We're still in the early stages of it since we just recently got this report," he said, adding that Metro officials are working to estimate their revenue losses and costs incurred."

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Sansone Law in the News

Bookmark:

As a St Louis based Missouri and Illinois personal injury attorney, I have represented several injured cyclists that have been hurt as the result of the negligence of a motorist. Over the last several years a few good foundations have fought for the legislation of better statutes and laws to protect bicyclists from cars in an attempt to reduce the number of bike accidents and injuries caused by drivers.

In Missouri the law requires that motorists maintain a safe distance when overtaking a cyclist, See Missouri Statutes 304.678 and 300.010:

Distance to be maintained when overtaking a bicycle.
304.678. The operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction on the roadway, as defined in section 300.010, RSMo, shall leave a safe distance when passing the bicycle, and shall maintain clearance until safely past the overtaken bicycle.

An excellent Missouri Bike Laws Resource: Missouri Bike Federation

To date however, there are many holes in Missouri's bike laws. For example, there is no law in Missouri giving a bike rider the right of way if a bike and a car approach an intersection at the same time going the same direction and the driver makes a right turn and hits the cyclist. There is no Missouri law in that case giving the cyclist the right of way, as any reasonable person would think. This may sound trivial, however, should this issue go to trial and a jury, then the personal injury lawyer for the injured bicyclist is not allowed to argue the car failed to yield. This could make a big difference to a jury and is a major claim of negligence that a judge may not allow a Missouri bike accident personal injury lawyer to submit on behalf of a bicycle accident victim.

Illinois Bicyclist Laws are progressing as well, as of January 1st Illinois law now requires:

1. Motorists must leave a minimum of 3 feet when passing a bike
2. Cyclists may "take the lane" (ride further from the curb) where right turns are authorized
3. Cyclists have the option of using a right arm hand signal when turning right

A Great Illinois Bike Law Resource: League of Illinois Bicyclists

More laws protecting cyclists will hopefully lead to less accidents and injuries, however, even if it does not, these laws are critical when protecting a cyclist's right in court. As I have learned through experience, a bike rider is fighting an uphill battle as most reporting police officers will report the case in favor of the driver, and most jurors tend to lean towards the driver, as all jurors are drivers, but few are bikers. The more laws stating the obvious protections then the more teeth an injured cyclist has in recovering from a negligent driver's insurance.

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Bicycle Accidents

Bookmark:

If you are the injured victim of a drunk driving accident in Missouri, Illinois, or any other state your personal injury lawyer should know that the drunk driver cannot insulate himself from liability by declaring bankruptcy. The Federal bankruptcy law is very clear on this point. See, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(9) exceptions to bankruptcy discharge include "(9) for death or personal injury caused by the debtor’s operation of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft if such operation was unlawful because the debtor was intoxicated from using alcohol, a drug, or another substance"

As discussed in a previous entry, I am currently handling a case where a drunk driver slammed into the rear of my client's car when she was waiting at a stop light in Belleville IL. See Drunk Driving Car Accident Picture and ALLSTATE UNDERHANDED NEGOTIATION TACTICS Allstate has refused to settle the case for a reasonable amount and when my client refused to accept their low offer Allstate, through their insurance lawyers and the insured drunk driver, threatened that their insured, the drunk driver, would declare bankruptcy if my client did not take their low offer for settlement of her Illinois drunk driving personal injury claim as a result of Allstate's insured drunk driver.

After calling Allstate out on their misrepresentation about the law they now claim, through their lawyer, that only punitive damages would be prevented from discharge in bankruptcy and all the compensatory damages would be discharged; another blatant misrepresentation of the law. The motivation behind this bad faith action by Allstate is two fold:

1. They want their insured feel safe that any judgment over the policy limits will not come back on him personally. This is done to explain to their insured why they are not settling a drunk driving case within policy limits when we are willing to do so. Thus opening their insured up to an excess judgment.

2. Allstate, through their lawyers, are hoping that I am stupid and will fall for their threat of bankruptcy and convince my client to take their low offer. Fortunately, I did not sleep through law school. Additionally, as a Missouri and Illinois personal injury lawyer, I have argued this point in past cases in federal court, and it is clear that a drunk driver's liability cannot be discharged.

Allstate is willing to sell out their insured and make ridiculous legal claims in order to save a buck and try to protect a drunk driver that seriously injured my client. This is coming from the self proclaimed "Good Hands" people, that when they take off those white gloves expose their truly dirty hands with their bad faith negotiation tactics.

SAMPLE PETITION - Prevent Discharge of Judgment or other Debt Arising From Drunk Driving Car Accident - Prevent at Fault Drunk Driver from Avoiding Liability by Declaring Bankruptcy

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Drunk Driving Law

Bookmark:

Do a simple Google search on Allstate and deceptive or any other similar word and you will find countless articles about their deceptive claims practices that are in direct conflict of their advertised public image of being in "Good Hands". Ask any injury lawyer or most individuals that have had to make an insurance claim involving Allstate to describe if they felt they were in "Good Hands" and they will describe an experience probably closer to the experience against the fictional Great Benefit insurance company in the legal drama the Rainmaker.

I have to deal with Allstate on a regular basis as a Missouri injury lawyer based in St Louis, and there is no doubt they are the most difficult insurance company to deal with as they have a deny, deny, deny attitude towards just about every claim. Whether you are making a claim against an insured of Allstate or you yourself are insured by Allstate and making a claim against them for a loss, trust me, the "Good Hands" turn into boxing gloves very quickly.

Allstate reached a new low in a recent settlement tactic they tried on one of my clients. She was severely injured as the result of a car accident when a high speed drunk driver, insured by Allstate, slammed into the rear of her vehicle as she was waiting at a red light in Belleville Illinois. The drunk driver has a policy limit with Allstate of $100,000; however, despite my client's severe injuries and the gross negligence and recklessness on behalf of Allstate's drunk insured, they have offered less than half of the policy limits. So we filed a lawsuit and Allstate's shady settlement tactic was that after we filed a lawsuit, the at fault driver, through Allstate's lawyers, threatened filing bankruptcy unless my client settled for the above mentioned low offer. Essentially, saying you better take this low offer we have made or you get nothing.

Does bankruptcy preclude an injured victim from recovering? In most cases NO. Even if a negligent driver files bankruptcy, this does not preclude the injured victim to the insurance coverage carried by the driver when the accident occurred. Therefore, in the above case, even if the driver files bankruptcy and it is granted, my client can still recover up to the $100,000 insurance policy. Moreover, any judgment or settlement arising from the injuries of a drunk driving accident are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy court does not let someone get out of a debt incurred as a result of their intentional or reckless conduct, such as a drunk driving accident. Therefore, this debt would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy and Allstate know it. However, it is a tactic that is very influential on a non-lawyer or a lawyer not familiar with the bankruptcy court.

Our response to Allstate, we called them out, demanded policy limits or we will pursue a judgment in excess of the policy limits and punitive damages against their insured (likely making him personally liable beyond his insurance coverage for their refusal to pay). Now, if you were Allstate's insured in this case, would you feel as if you were in "Good Hands"?

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

Posted In: Injury Law

Bookmark:

As an Illinois injury lawyer with a significant Missouri and Illinois medical malpractice legal practice, I am always keeping an eye on the interests of future injured victims and whether or not they will have any rights left in the years to come as the recent trend in Misosuri and Illinois, as well as other states. For the last 10 years their has been a constant and significant erosion of medical malpractice victim rights. Illinois is starting to swing that pendulum back to where it belongs, recently, a Circuit Court Judge for Cook County Illinois ruled that the damage cap provision of the 2005 Illinois Tort Reform Statute (Public Act 94-677) which limits non-economic damages to $500,000 against doctors and $1,000,000 against some hospitals, is unconstitutional. The Judge ruled that the act infringed on the jury's deliberation and amounts to a "legislative remittur" of the jury's findings. Remittur is when the court reduces a verdict based on several factors, but essentially the court will reduce the verdict amount if it is clearly excessive based on the facts of the case. The tort reform act is imposing remittur without consideration of the merits of the specific case, thus infringing on the provence of the jury and unconstitutional. Moreover, the tort reform act did not contain a severability clause, a clause that allows the rest of the act to survive if one portion is found unconstitutional; therefore, the entire act is deemed unconstitutional.

This is clearly a victory for victims and the trial lawyers bar, particularly Illinois injury trial lawyers (one of the few only organizations that represent the interests of future injured parties).

Clearly, this ruling will be challenged on appeal and this issue will likely go to the Supreme Court of Illinois despite the ruling on the appellate level. However, this ruling represents a victory in one of many battles of the war between medical malpractice victims and the insurance companies using their money and political influence to unfairly change the laws to protect their pocket books at the detriment of innocent people injured by the carelessness of others who they believe deserve special treatment because it says M.D. after their name.

Missouri's tort reform act that was also signed into law in 2005, has lower damage caps of $350,000 (which can not be adjusted for inflation) as well as several evidentiary rules that improperly tips the scales of justice in favor of insurance companies. A few examples. the collateral source rule, the defendant can get in evidence that the victim had insurance coverage or other financial support to help pay the bills, but the jury cannot be allowed to know the defendant has liability coverage, to even mention it or imply it is grounds for a mistrial. The other examples are presumption of bills paid as damages, requirement of a certificate of merit by a specialist in the exact same field for filing a Missouri Medical Malpractice case, venue rules as the place of injury as the only venue for the cause of action, and the list goes on, not even to mention the changes to Missouri's Workers Compensation laws.

Hopefully some cases facing the same issues for Missouri's 2005 Tort Reform act will start to raise these same questions and strike portions of the Tort Reform act as unconstitutional as well. However, the cases have to work their way through the system but we should start seeing them soon.

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

A few weeks ago in Desoto Missouri 3 teenagers were seriously injured in a car accident when their vehicle slid off the road and went off a 32 foot cliff and landed in a shopping center parking lot. One passenger was very lucky and walked away, however, the other 2 passengers and the driver are all seriously injured. Including head injuries, broken back, hip injuries, fractured facial bones, orbital fracture, and the list goes on.

See MYFOXSTL News Story - Three Teens Injured When Car Falls 30 Feet off Cliff in Desoto

As an experienced Missouri car accident lawyer many legal issues of liability against the city, county, and state come to mind for an improper barrier or guard on the side of the road to prevent a vehicle that runs of the road there from going down a 30 foot cliff. This is especially important given the anticipated limited amount auto insurance that will be available to my client and the other injured teens in this accident to compensate them for their personal injury. Good injury lawyers know where to look to make sure their clients don't just get the easy policy limit from one insurance policy, but to be thorough and creative to find all parties that may be legally liable.

There have been several personal injury car accident cases in Missouri that have resulted in settlements against auto insurers and the local and state governments as well. Many of those cases are discussed on this blog and include the following:

County Liable for Downed Stop Sign

MODOT Liable for Dangerous Intersection - Personal Injury Resulting From Car Accident

It is very likely that I and the other Missouri personal injury lawyers representing the other injured teens will be filing a claim against the city and other government agencies responsible for the lack of a guard rail and simply putting a cable on the side of the road to stop vehicles from going off the highway.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

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

Bookmark:

Missouri Products Liability Lawsuit - Brown v. Toys-R-Us, Inc. My client, Essence, is a young girl that suffered a severe injury to her eye from a surprising source, a toy. A toy kitchen set called "Lil Chef" kitchen set, The box strongly implies it was made by Toys-R-Us and has their company info on the box, additionally, nowhere does it indicate it was made in China. However, after filing a products liability lawsuit against Toys-R-Us, in St Louis Missouri, their lawyers are now trying to point the finger at a currently unknown Chinese toy manufacturer. They are attempting to add them as a third party defendant, thus they can argue that if they are liable then the Chinese company (third party defendant) should be liable to them for any judgment against Toys-R-Us.

What is wrong with this toy? The kitchen set is marketed for kids around 4-6 years old and includes plastic toy knifes. These toy knifes are serrated, stiff, rigid, and sharp. Essence was play cutting string when the toy knife cut through the string and stabbed her in the eye. The toy is unreasonably dangerous as its characteristics described above are not only unnecessary for a toy knife, but are absolutely dangerous in the hands of very young children. The injury resulted in a cut and bruised cornea severely debilitating her eye sight. Essence has been forced to undergo eye surgery and her doctors believe she will need surgery when she gets older and that she has a permanent injury to her eye that will result in eyesight problems for the rest of her life. Eye injury information.

Under Missouri injury law, Essence is entitled to her past medical bills (about $40,000),her future medical bills (yet to be determined) and her past and future pain and suffering, which included her permanent disability to her eye.

This personal injury /products liability toy lawsuit is another example of the flurry of defective and dangerous toys from China. Recent research is showing that despite all the recalls numerous dangerous toys from China are on the US store shelves.

This holiday season be careful, watch for the made in China labels on toys, however, if you are unfortunate enough to buy a toy made in China but it is not disclosed and a loved one is injured you have an option, call us, as we are experienced products liability and dangerous toy lawyers based in St Louis Missouri and covering all of Missouri and Illinois.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Products Liability / Dangerous Products

Bookmark:

Ms. Jacobs was traveling on I-70 when a fatigued truck driver fell asleep at the wheel and swerved into her and forced her off the highway. As a result of the truck accident she suffered shoulder impingement that required surgery.

The case was transferred to me after several years of drawn out litigation with another personal injury law firm that initially filed the injury case. The client came to us because she wanted her case pursued aggressively by personal injury trial lawyers. Her prior lawyers were not pursuing the case diligently, they failed to prepare and set the case for trial which keeps continued pressure on the insurance company.

When my office received the case the offer from State Farm Insurance, the insurer for the negligent truck driver, was about $20,000. I prepared the case for trial, primarily by getting the client's treating doctor's medical testimony on the record which supported her injuries, continued symptoms, medical treatment, and the doctor's opinion that the accident was the sole cause for the injuries and resultant symptoms.

More importantly, we amended the Injury Petition to a "Negligence Per Se Petition" based on the fact the negligent truck driver was cited by the police for careless and imprudent driving, moreover, the negligent truck driver plead guilty to and was convicted of the careless and imprudent driving, therefore, the issue of liability was was essentially admitted by the truck driver's plea of guilty and conviction. The negligence per se Petition was allowed by the Judge, thus adding tremendous pressure on State Farm. The issue at trial was not both liability and damages, but only damages now.

The defense lawyers for State Farm increased their offer by more than double within a few days of trial to $45,000. This was an exceptional injury settlement based on the medical bills of about $13,000 and the client's injuries which she recovered from.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements , Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Truck Accidents

Bookmark:

In Franklin County Missouri, just outside the St Louis Missouri area, a serious truck accident occurred when a freight-liner model semi truck collided with a fire truck that was stopped on the side of the highway in response to another car accident.

Our client, an injured firefighter contacted us knowing we are experienced Missouri personal injury attorneys and especially Missouri truck accident lawyers. Both the fire truck and the tractor trailer were severely damaged and had to be towed from the scene as the semi truck struck the fire truck at about 60 MPH according to the truck driver's statement to police. The fire truck was hurled 186 feet, and worse yet, my client was in the fire truck when this massive truck accident occurred.

After the truck accident occurred and the trucks came to a rest, my client was evacuated to the hospital for treatment. Luckily, he is recovering from his injuries and hopefully will be back to normal after continued physical therapy.

Generally, a semi truck accident or collision involves another vehicle of much smaller size, such as the passenger vehicles most of us drive. The only thing that saved my clients life is the fact that he was in a vehicle that was the size and weight of the massive truck that slammed into him. Many truck accident victims are not that lucky. Experienced truck accident lawyers are essential as insurance, liability, and regulations are very particular in commercial freightliner and tractor trailer cases.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Truck Accidents

Bookmark:

In 2007, there was a confidential settlement of a medical negligence case. Suit for the alleged negligent failure to timely diagnose and surgically treat complications following a gastric bypass (or stomach staple) procedure, settled for the sum of $3.5 million against the bariatric program of a hospital.

Additionally, we settled with the surgeon for his medical malpractice insurance policy limits of $1,000,000.00 Per confidentiality agreements names of parties and specifics of the case cannot be revealed.

CT Scan showing Leak from Staple Line
Arrows show leak abcess
A common complication that must be treated

Co-counsel on the above case was Robert Pedroli of Pedroli and Gauthier

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements , Injury Law , Medical Malpractice , Gastric Bypass Malpractice , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

My new client who has been a nurse for over 20 years can no longer work due to her work related injuries. She slipped and fell at work outside the operating room and violently hit a concrete wall twisting her beck and injuring her neck and shoulder. She has undergone 3 surgeries to her back to fuse her lumbar spine and will likely never be able to work again.

Workers' Compensation cases in Missouri and most other states exist whenever an employee is injured at work and while in the course and scope of their job duties. The goal of workers comp is to give an injured worker financial relief due to a work related injury that prevents them from being able to perform their job.

In the case of this particular client, her back injury will prevent her from being able to work in the medical field ever again. This is referred to as a permanent and total disability. Due to the back injuries, standing for long periods of time and strenuous and stressful work are impossible for my client.

Many people have a negative attitudes to injured workers, considering them fakers or looking for an easy buck. My clients that have permanent disabilities that prevent them from working are often financially and emotionally devastated due to the inability to financially plan for their future and carry on their once normal lives. Even though we are able to get them generous compensation for their injuries, you cannot put a price on your basic physical abilities and well being.

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

In a previous entry I discussed the applicability of tort reform on medical malpractice actions in Missouri. See MISSOURI MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND WRONGFUL DEATH ENTRY

Specifically, I discussed a case I am handling where we filed the wrongful death case as a result of medical malpractice prior to Missouri Tort Reform which went into effect in August 2005. Based on discovery we added an additional party after the tort reform bill went into effect. The new defendant, a medical group named Southwest Medical Center, claimed that tort reform defenses should apply to them because they were added after tort reform.

As previously discussed, the Judge denied a change of venue motion asserted by the medical group holding that tort reform did not apply to their case because there was not a new cause of action and therefore the law at the time of the original filing applied.

I was waiting on an additional Order from the Court ruling on our Motion to Strike the Affirmative Defenses of the medical group. Just recently we received that Order and as expected the Judge Ordered that the medical group's affirmative defenses based on the new tort reform laws must be stricken from their pleadings.

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

In early 2005 we filed a medical malpractice and wrongful death claim against an area hospital and surgeon as the result of the death of patient after gastric bypass surgery. In the fall of 2005, after tort reform went into effect on 8/29/2005 radically altering medical malpractice laws in Missouri, we added a medical group that we discovered was the surgeon's employer.

Prior to tort reform venue was in the county where the negligent medical treatment occurred, however, post tort reform medical malpractice wrongful death cases was in the county where the first medical treatment for the medical condition was received. Additional, tort reform gives health care providers additional affirmative defenses that make pursuing these case very difficult under the new laws.

So the question in our case became, whether or not adding the medical group after tort reform constituted a new cause of action and thus requiring the application of the tort reform laws to the newly added defendant.

Missouri Statute §538.305 provides that the new medical negligence Tort Reform statutes "apply to all causes of action filed after August 28, 2005." Therefore, is the Amended Petition adding the medical group the same cause of action as the original cause of action, that we filed prior to tort reform?

The Judge in our case ruled in our favor stating that the basic operative facts have not changed and therefore adding the new defendant after tort reform was not a "new cause of action"and therefore the new tort reform laws do not apply to our case. This is a critical ruling and very helpful to Plaintiffs in Missouri pursuing cases filed around the time of tort reform. The Judge ruled that venue does not change, effectively ruling that the new statutes do not apply for any of the tort reform based affirmative defenses raised which would severely hamper our clients' claims.

Thus, I expect the Judge to rule in our favor again and strike the post tort reform defenses raised by the medical group; mainly the non-economic loss caps and critical evidentiary rules.

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

On September 1, 2007 Jerry was riding his Honda VTX custom motorcycle in Sullivan Missouri on highway 50 when a automobile heading the opposite direction made a sudden and unsignaled left turn about 15 feet in front of him. A Motorcycle and automobile collision resulted as Jerry was forced to lay his motorcycle on its side and slide behind it to avoid fatal injury. He finally decided to contact a motorcycle accident lawyer and called our office. Jerry was comforted by the fact that I am a motorcycle rider myself and have personally been in 2 motorcycle accidents, one very similar to his, and understand the injury issues and concerns that a motorcycle has. Additionally, we have represented numerous victims involved in motorcycle accidents and motorcycle related injury.

The driver of the other vehicle admitted fault and negligence and was cited by the responding police officer. Jerry currently has severe burns from the pavement over his legs, arms and back. Additionally, he is suffering from multiple cuts and bruises and a potentially broken or dislocated shoulder along with currently unknown injuries to his ribs and upper chest area.

Motorcyclists know, the biggest danger to them is an unobservant driver that simply does not notice a smaller vehicle or is just not paying attention. The main causes of motorcycle accidents in Missouri and elsewhere are speed, driver inattention and failure to yield right of way.

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

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

Bookmark:

Motorcycle accident occurred on August 30th westbound on I-44 outside St Louis Missouri. My client, Paul, was riding a motorcycle in the right hand lane at about 70 MPH when another driver came up behind him at over 100 MPH slamming into the back of his bike, throwing him into the windshield and over the car and left to skid for several hundred yards.

As an accident attorney, I see a lot of serious injuries, I have seen serious injuries from decubitus ulcers, open abdomens and the like. Paul was in the hospital just after back surgery to fuse his lower spine, and he is in traction to prevent his leg from falling out of his hip socket. Most debilitating of all, the road rash or removal of his skin from sliding on the pavement; this is a sight I still have trouble stomaching, especially because I am a motorcyclist myself and start imagining how these injuries would feel.

Car accidents occur daily and motorcycle accidents are very common as well. The vast majority of motorcycle injuries and accidents occur from inattention by other drivers, and this is my experience as an injury lawyer. This is the case here, the gross negligence and recklessness of a driver doing 100 MPH and not even hitting the brakes before ramming into the back of Paul's motorcycle and causing severe personal injury.

The rest of the pictures are not shown for client privacy and the gore would be inappropriate

Paul is lucky to be alive and his helmet saved his life. He is unlucky that the accident occurred but lucky the driver has a high policy of insurance. The minimum amount of insurance a motorist must carry under Missouri law is 25,000 for liability. This would not even come close to compensating Paul for such injuries. The driver surprisingly has a high policy limit.

Question here, do we take the policy limit and settle the case? Or do we pursue the policy limits plus liability personally on the driver? I am of the persuasion to go after the driver due to the recklessness in this case, not just inattention, but blatant recklessness. I will update this blog entry when my client decides if he wants to stop at the policy limits or keep going.

There is evidence the driver was drinking but he was not cited for DWI.

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

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

Bookmark:

Our new client, Erin, was recently involved in a bike accident in St Louis MO while on the Grant Trail. The Grant Trail crosses Grand and at that intersection there is also a gas station. Erin suffered serious personal injury as the result of a driver who failed to yield to her right of way when crossing the intersection. She had the walk signal and the driver simply did not see her, why? because many driver's simply do not look out for cyclists. Erin wound up int he hospital for 4 days with lacerations, bruises, and a severely broken ankle.

The driver admitted fault to Erin and another cyclist witnessed the admission, however, when the police arrived the driver's story changed. Fortunately this is a case supported by evidence of independent witnesses and the fact of the light and crosswalks signal timing, which will show the driver made and illegal right turn on red.

Some bicyclists end up a lot worse than Erin, there are several reported cases of Missouri bike accidents where the bicyclists have died, over 4 dozen in the past 5 years. One such instance was about 30 days ago when 2 cyclists died when rammed from behind by a pickup truck. Charges against the driver are under review, chances are a fine and community service will result.

Bicyclists all know it, many drivers do not like us! and, unfortunately, that sentiment is no different in the legal system. As I have posted before, I am an avid cyclist, I will go for a weeks without missing a day of 20 mile rides and 50 mile rides on the weekend. It is a great activity, however, many drivers just do not pay attention to us or do not care to; that is when injuries or even death occurs.

I am one of the few injury lawyers I know who take bicycle accident cases (unless it is an egregious case, most lawyers take those cases), in fact, some of the best bicycle cases I have are "orphan cases" meaning other lawyers did not want them for whatever reason. I think many injury lawyers draw on their experiences as a motorists and maybe they have had frustration with cyclists in the past and therefore cannot see the side of the cyclist.

Coming up in the nest couple of weeks is the MS 150 in Columbia MO, I am on a a team riding in the event and I hope this year is as great as the last 5 years we have attended, no serious accidents!

Posted by Benjamin J. Sansone | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

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

Bookmark:

You go to the hospital emergency room, and the attending doctor is negligent, resulting in an injury or, even worse, a relative dies. If your injuries or a relatives death warrant more than 1 million dollars you better hope the doctor is an employee or agent of the hospital, the deeper pocket. Chances are, he is not an employee but just on staff with privileges. This poses problems in serious injury and death cases because oftentimes 1 million, the amount of insurance most doctors carry, is not enough. A vigilant injury lawyer must find out, is the hospital's insurance available to compensate for the wrong?

Missouri courts have listed several factors to aide in deciding whether or not a doctor is acting as an agent of a principal, and therefore, within the course and scope of the agency with a hospital or health care organization. The factors are listed and applied in Keller v. Missouri Baptist Hospital, 800 S.W.2d 35, 38 & 39 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) and include the following:

A. Control over the physician’s practice;
B. The contract requires full time employment;
C. The parties to the contract contemplated a long term relationship;
D. Full time employment by one employer;
E. Right to terminate physician per the agreement; and
F. Principal undertaking to provide medical malpractice insurance.

If these factors applied to an individual case demonstrate that the doctor was an agent of another entity and acting within the course and scope of his agency, then yes, more insurance coverage is out there.

I have handled this issue before and the determination is very fact specific. Healthcare organizations are legally separating themselves from the doctors that a lay person would think is an employee or agent in order to avoid and limit legal liability for their mistakes. With the addition of the 2005 Tort Reform laws passed by Gov. Blunt, the desired effect of shielding health care professionals from liability for their negligence is quickly becoming a dire but true reality of doctors and hospitals being above the law.

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

We filed a Missouri medical malpractice and wrongful death case against a defendant doctor and hospital prior to the new tort reform statutes that went in to effect on August 28, 2005. After August 28, 2005 we added a third medical malpractice and wrongful death defendant after discovery revealed the doctor was an employee of a Medical Group. Thus the Medical Group is responsible under agency theories. We settled the case with the doctor and the hospital recently and are still pursuing the employer. The employer is trying to claim that since we added them after the tort reform provision went into effect and the other parties have been dismissed venue needs to be redetermined, mainly because they want the case out of St Louis City and moved to St Louis County.

This case or "cause of action" arises from one set of operative facts that the doctor failed to timely diagnose and treat post operative complications of the decedent which lead to his untimely death. The original suit was filed prior to August 28, 2005. Discovery revealed that the defendant doctor was an employee of defendant Medical Group at the time of the medical negligence and that he was working within the course and scope of his employment with the group.

Section §538.305 provides that the new medical negligence Tort Reform Statutes "apply to all causes of action filed after August 28, 2005." The issue is, whether the amended Petition adding the Medical Group is the same cause of action as the original cause of action. Therefore, the term "cause of action" becomes critical to the analysis. This term has been given different meanings by different courts in varied contexts. See lA C.J.S. Actions §14 (2005).

In Chesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield, 64 S.W 3d 315, 318 (Mo. banc 2002), the Supreme Court defined cause of action using the definition given in Blacks Law Dictionary, as a "group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing." Under this definition, it is apparent that Plaintiffs’ Amended Petition adding the Medical Group raises the same facts for suing under the same theories. The Court continued to state that “ a cause of action remains the same even tough additional or different theories of evidence or law might be advanced to support it. Id. The term “cause of action” refers to the negligent act or omission. State ex. rel. Burns Rowe v. The Honorable Carolyn C. Wittington, case # SC87962 (Mo 2007).

In Collins v. Burg, 996 S.W. 2d 512 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999), the Court noted that the test whether a cause of action is the same involves not only whether the nucleus of operative facts is essentially the same, but also whether the parties necessary to sustain the claim are the same. Id at 515.

In our case, the operative facts are the level of care rendered by the doctor while in the course and scope of his employment. In the original Petition, it is alleged that the doctor acted negligently and now the actual employment of doctor by Medical Group is undisputed, the only dispute is course and scope, not actual employment.

The Medical Group was not "necessary to sustain the claim." Causes of action have long proceeded and juries have long been instructed on the liability of the principal for the conduct of the agent without the agent being a party. Therefore, the new laws do not apply because this cause of action was previously filed. The addition of the Medical Group as a Defendant was not necessary and no theory of liability is raised in the amended Petition, which was not raised in the original petition.

Continue reading "Missouri Medical Negligence and Wrongful Death - Venue after 2005 Tort Reform - Case Filed before Tort Reform and Added Party After Tort Reform - Does the New Venue Statute Apply? " »

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

Kathy, a successful self employed business owner, suffered personal injury as the result fo a dangerous condition at the premises of the Lowe's garden center in Rolla Missouri. She often visits the garden center as she runs a landscaping company. It is common for there to be standing water, however, there was standing water that was different this day and there was no warning of the dangerous condition. When the plants are given food through a liquid solution it makes the water particularly slippery, much more so than typical standing water. Lowes failed to put up signs informing patrons of this condition and therefore Kathy had no notice of this condition despite the fact she knew she was stepping into standing water.

Upon stepping into this unmarked and dangerous condition Kathy fell and injured her knee and hamstring. Currently she is being treated for a torn meniscus cartilage in her knee, torn hamstring, and other injuries to her knee.

Personal injury lawyers know the issues presented by this case and many premise liability cases in Missouri are (1) Was there a dangerous condition, (2) notice of the condition, constructive or actual, (3) duty to make safe; (4) damages; and (5) comparative fault of the injured party, i.e. was the condition "open and obvious". Particularly in this case the first defense reaction will be that she saw the water and knew she was stepping into it so she is partially at fault. Not the case here! This was not typical water, but water infused with plant food making it very slick as compared to normal standing water. This is a condition that Lowe's generally marks with signs, but did not on this occasion.

In this case, Lowe's breached their duty to inspect and make their premises safe for business customers (a higher duty than private property not for the operation of a business) by failing to mark a known dangerous condition that was not open and obvious as it appears to be regular water.

This is a case were I feel it is reasonable to demand payment based on Lowe's being 100% at fault and not apportioning any fault to Kathy as the fact that water was there was open and obvious, but the nature of this water was not open and obvious.

In the past, Sansone Law, LLC has recovered for many clients that have been injured as a result of unreasonably dangerous conditions on a business premises. For examples, see our sample verdicts.

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Premises Liability

Bookmark:

A car accident occurred in Illinois as the result of a truck going approximately 60 MPH and ramming into the back of our client's, Donald's, vehicle that was sitting at a stop light. We are pursuing two claims on behalf of Donald, a personal injury claim against the at fault driver as a result of his negligence and an Illinois Workers' Compensation claim as Donald was driving a company vehicle at the time of the accident and was on duty for is employer.

Personal injury claims and Workers' Compensation claims vary in many ways. In Workers' Compensation claims the amount of money, or damages, Donald is entitled to is based on his injury translated into a disability rating which is then calculated by different factors depending on what part of the body is injuried and how much he earned per week at the time of the injury.

The personal injury claim is filed through the Illinois court system as a negligence case against the driver. The primary issues are liability and damages, or in other words, whose fault it is and how much money the victim should get as a result of that fault and the resultant injuries. These cases are ultimately decided by a jury, if a settlement is not reached, and damages are based on the jury's determination based on bills, economic damages, and pain and suffering, non economic damages. There is no magic formula for determining the damages but it is left to the jury.

When both types of cases are filed, the Workers' Compensation insurance company is entitled to a lien on the proceeds from the personal injury case. This lien is based on the fact that in workers' compensation claims liability is not an issue and medical bills are paid by the work comp insurer, entitling them to a lien to recover their expenses for paying the medical bills as the result of the 3rd party's negligence.

It is always worthwhile to pursue both the work comp case ans the negligence case when their is an a fault party that is not also employed by the same employer. Many clients worry about the lien, however, this can often be negotiated down to make sure the client receives a good recovery on both cases, and ultimatley a larger recover than if they pursued only one case.

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

After a traumatic motor vehicle accident in Illinois involving a large pickup truck and a smaller sedan with three severly injured passengers, the families of the victims desperately needed a personal injury lawyer and contacted us, we immediately cleared our schedule and traveled to the hospital in Illinois to visit the families.

Our investigation of the truck accident revealed that the driver of the pickup truck was drunk, had several bottles of liquor in his car, and was doing about 80 MPH when he struck the sedan that was coming to a stop to make a turn. The impact from the truck threw the sedan about 150 yards into a ditch and there were no skid marks from the truck evidencing that he did not even touch his brakes. The property damage to the sedan is severe and it is amazing that all of the passengers survived.

We now represent three of the passengers that were in the sedan. Two of the passengers have severe and debilitating injuries. The man in the back seat was trapped in the car for several hours and suffered degloving injuries (removal of the skin from the impact) to his face and has endured a severe and traumatic brain injury. The young girl in the back seat suffered a broken pelvis and broken neck.

When faced with a case such as this a lawyer's primary concern is insurance coverage and if there will be enough to fully compensate our clients, the victims. The sedan driver's insurance may be on the hook as she apparently stopped suddenly and may not have used her turn signal, the injured parties insurance may provide coverage under their medical payments ("Med Pay") coverage, under-insured motorist coverage, and uninsured motorist coverage. The interesting issue will be what insurance we can get to cover for the truck driver's negligence. The driver of the truck was clearly the most negligent and reckless, additionally, he is the son of a local car dealer and the truck had dealer plates on the truck. Therefore, the auto or general liability policy of the auto dealership should cover. Moreover there is a potential case of negligent entrustment of the vehicle by the parents or the dealership potentially allowing access to home owner's or umbrella coverage.

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

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

Bookmark:

In Missouri the 2005 tort reform has severely limited the rights of victims of personal injury as the result of the negligence of someone else, and apparently that devastation to the legal justice system is not enough. Additionally, Illinois personal injury rights are under attack daily as well. The new trend is now to push for mandatory arbitration, particularly in medical malpractice cases under the guise of "Health Courts". This is essentially mandatory arbitration, taking away your right to a trial by jury. Voluntary arbitration is acceptable and very useful in our legal system in all types of cases including personal injury cases; however, it has be to be in case where arbitration is likely to produce a fair result and both parties want to forego the time and expense of a jury trial.

Recently, the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 was introduced in an attempt to curtail this unfair trend. With the understanding that mandatory arbitration prevents victims of personal injury and their families from having a fair opportunity to justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others. More and more, corporations are using mandatory arbitration clauses to weaken the basic legal protections the constitution provides and further stack the deck against individuals who are forced to fight Goliath. Voluntary arbitration is an effective method to resolve disputes efficiently, but, unsuspecting consumers must not be forced into it through the fine and small print hidden on the back pages of an agreement.

Many injury victim advocates, such as AAJ, support strong consumer protection laws to keep the playing field level so that individuals can access justice and wrongdoers can be held accountable.

2007 ARBITRATION FAIRNESS ACT

Continue reading "Injury Law - Missouri and Illinois - Mandatory Arbitration in Injury Cases? An Attempt to Deny Victims their Constitutional Right to a Trial by Jury " »

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

Posted In: Injury Law

Bookmark:

Recently, an Alton Illinois woman was killed in motorcycle accident when she struck a concrete retaining wall and a tree. She died from massive head injuries, additionally, she was not wearing a helmet. Apparently, she was learning to ride the motorcycle as she had very little experience.

Unfortunately, when a motorcyclist is in a motorcycle accident in Missouri, Illinois, or anywhere else, they usually lose unless properly trained and equipped with the proper safety equipment, namely, a helmet. In Missouri, motorcyclists must wear a helmet as mandated by state law, however, this is not the case in Illinois as it is legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

I have been in two motorcycle accidents and walked away from both, however, I did suffer a minor head injury from one of the motor vehicle accidents. The reason i walked away from both, I was wearing safety equipment and was trained how to react when in a motorcycle accident.

In St Louis, Missouri I was in a motorcycle accident at the intersection of Clayton and Big Bend when a driver failed to see me on my motorcycle and failed to yield and pulled out in front of me without warning. My reaction, drop the bike on its side and slide behind it. The motorcycle took most of the damage and I slide under the car and struck my head on the rocker panel. I walked away and suffered only minor injuries. If I was not wearing a helmet I would be dead.

A Missouri personal injury claim was filed against the driver through his insurance company and a favorable settlement was quickly reached after I recovered from my head injury and other back and neck injuries. The damage to the helmet makes a great exhibit for the force of the impact when pursuing these claims.

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Motorcycle Accidents

Bookmark:

Illinois applies the same standard as Missouri. In Illinois an attorney who was retained on a contingency contract and is subsequently discharged is limited to recovery under Quantum Meruit. Hofreiter v. Leigh, 124 Ill. App 3d 1052. The fee to which you are entitled is calculated by time spent on the case in performing legitimate legal services for the client and multiplying that by a reasonable hourly rate. John v. Klecan, 198 Ill. App. 3d 1013, 1019.

Under Missouri law, an attorney discharged without good cause has a right to a reasonable fee for services rendered. The discharge of an attorney employed under a contingent fee contract will work a termination of the contingent fee agreement. Plaza Shoe Store, Inc. v. Hermel, Inc., 636 S.W.2d 53 (Mo. banc 1982). In Plaza Shoe Store the Supreme Court of Missouri held that an attorney working on a contingent fee contract who is discharged by the client without cause is entitled to recover the reasonable value of his services, as measured by his normal hourly rate and the amount of hours put into working on the case.

People often rush to hire a personal injury lawyer based on the recommendation of a friend or relative and sometimes find that they are not satisfied with their attorney or come to find that a different attorney has more experience in injury law. Many lawyers who do not handle a lot of personal injury cases take personal injury cases. So if you find you want to hire a lawyer with more experience in injury law but are afraid of what you will owe the previous lawyer and that changing lawyers will mean less money for you, do not worry, the law is on your side.

Once a personal injury lawyer is discharged (for cause or just because) the contract is legally void and the attorney has a lien for the reasonable time he or she has put into the case multiplied by a reasonable hourly fee. If the case comes to me after you discharge your lawyer I will satisfy the previous lawyers fee out of my fee, therefore, you the client will not be disadvantaged financially for switching lawyers and in most cases you will receive more money as a better result may be obtained,as we have in the past made millions on cases rejected by otehr lawyers who did not know how to recognize the issues that mattered most.

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

Posted In: Injury Law

Bookmark:

The wrongful death case brought by the Handcock family stemming from the car accident wherein Josh Hancock was killed has been dismissed without prejudice against all Defendants.

PLEASE REFER BACK TO PREVIOUS POST - Missouri Wrongful Death Claimed by the Estate of Deceased Cardinal's Pitcher Josh Hancock - Frivilouis Lawsuit?

FOX 2 ST LOUIS NEWS BROADCAST OF DISMISSAL

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

After a lawsuit filed by an injured driver a jury verdict was returned for $150,000 in favor of the plaintiff on the claim that the county negligently failed to maintain or repair a downed stop sign and that caused a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff sustained personal injury.

The county argued that sovereign immunity should have barred the lawsuit. However, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the cause of action for failure to maintain or repair a stop sign falls within the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity for injuries resulting from dangerous conditions on public property. Missouri Statute 537.600.

This is a victory for victims of injury as the court refused to narrowly interpret the above statute allowing government entities to escape liability for their negligence.

Douglas A. Hensley, Jr., Respondent, v. Jackson County, Missouri, Appellant

Missouri Statute 537.600 - Sovereign Immunity Exceptions

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

Posted In: Injury Law , Automobile Accidents

Bookmark:

Wrongful death personal injury practice covers cases where families have suffered the tragic lose of a loved one. In one case our client died as the result of a surgeon's failure to treat post op complications about 2 weeks after a gastric bypass surgery. The doctor was enabled by the sponsoring hospital that aggresively advertised the procedure across the midwest and loaded him up with 100s of surgeries per year. The case is still pending against several other defendants, including the hospital, and we expect the case to settle for over 5 million dollars.

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Medical Malpractice , Gastric Bypass Malpractice , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Workers' Compensation Claim for post traumatic stress disorder based on the fact that my client, Nathan, witnessed his brother, Jason, fall from a water tower to his death after a safety clip failed to close and failed to keep him attached to the structure after he slipped on ice and fell. Working just a few feet from him, his brother witnessed the entire event.

The alleged causes are the failure to have proper safety measures in place by the employer, as well as product liability based on defective safety equipment. The employer was cited by OSHA and fined almost $30,000. The employer, Phoenix Fabricators, is disputing the citations and that matter is ongoing.

There is also evidence that the caliper (pictured below) failed to close due to a defective design. This matter is currently under investigation by my firm. The picture above was taken from the position my client was when he slipped and fell to his death and from the vantage point my other client, Nathan, was when he witnessed the fall.

We have filed a Workers' Compensation claim on behalf of both brothers (the survisors for the deceased brother). Additionally, third party claims will be filed once the OSHA investigation report is released.

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

Currently I represent a wonderful lady involved in a bike accident who rides her bike several times a week early in the morning and on lightly traveled roads. About 6 months ago a driver in a hurry to get to work around 6:00 a.m. passed her and then made a sudden right turn directly in front of her causing her to strike the side of his truck and that caused her to be thrown off her bike. The driver got out, asked if she was ok, and then immediately left! She went to the hospital and was found to have a fractured elbow and had to have a bolt placed in her arm. She underwent months of pain and medical treatment. I filed a negligence claim on her behalf against the driver.

The Missouri Driver's Guide States:

If you are following a bicyclist and need to make a right turn, you must yield to the cyclist. It is often safer to slow down and remain behind the cyclist until you are able to turn.

The case is currently set for trial in December 2007. One of the difficulties I anticipate we will have is jury selection. As we all know, drivers do not particularly like bicyclists, they get in our way when we drive! I am an avid bicyclist and I often have these thoughts when someone is riding their bike on a busy street.

Hopefully we can overcome the bias that is apparent in our society, especially considering my client in this case was riding early in the morning, on a side road with a large shoulder area, and she was riding on the shoulder which was several feet wide.

Missouri Law related to Bicyclists - As published by the Missouri Bicycle Federation

Statements from Missouri Driver's Guide about Sharing the Road

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

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

Bookmark:

St Louis residents familiar with the intersection of Dunn Road and I-270 know that the on ramp cuts across a lane of traffic, known as a "slip ramp". This is particularly dangerous and was almost fatal to the client of a lawyer in my office suite. This was negligent design by MODOT that contributed to the cause of the car accident.

Car Accident Lawyer:

The setup of the intersection at Dunn Road and I-270 made it prime for collisions like Hill's, he said. Cars waiting on Dunn to jump onto the on-ramp must yield to oncoming traffic, but many drivers zip in front of traffic or dart around yielding vehicles. With no traffic islands, signage or stoplights, Pedroli said the area is a chaotic free-for-all.

Ryan Hill's car was struck by another driver using the on ramp that cuts across the lane of traffic Hill was traveling in. Hill almost died, he ended up with near fatal injuries and over two hundred thousand in medical bills.

VIDEO OF FOX NEWS REPORT ABOUT THE ACCIDENT

St Louis Daily Record and Countian Article

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

Posted In: Injury Law

Bookmark:

Due to the risk of burn injuries and other personal injury risks, the classic "Easy-Bake" oven manufactured and distributed by Hasbro for over 40 years has been recalled. All ovens produced since May 2006, about 1 million, have been recalled as there is a risk that children will get their hands or limbs caught in the door due to its design. Additionally, many children have suffered burns.

The oven has been linked to approximately 280 incidents where kids kids get their hands and limbs caught in the door. There are also reported cases of partial amputation.

SUNTIMES ARTICLE ON PRODUCT LIABILITY RECALL

This reminds me of a similar injury case we currently have pending. Our client's daughter was 6 years old when she lacerated her cornea using a toy kitchen set knife. Upon inspection the plastic toy kitchen knife was serrated and actually quite sharp. The design should have been a blunt or very dull edge and the injury to her eye would not have occurred.

CPSC Defective Product Recall Article

Defective Product Manufacturer Hasbro's Website for Injured and Concerned Consumers

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

Posted In: Injury Law

Bookmark:

M.A.E. v. Dr Smith, M.D. (confidentiality agreement), Missouri 2006

Medical Malpractice settlement after my client underwent a de Quervain's release, a simple outpatient procedure designed to relieve pain caused from injured tendons at the base of the thumb and wrist. The Dr. negligently cut 90% of the siatic nerve when making the incision, reducing our clients ability to feel the back of her hand and causing a numbing sensation.

My client incurred nominal additional expenses and lost wages as a result of the doctor's negligence. There was a zero offer from defendant to settle the case until 2 days before trial and the case was settled for $60,000. Additionally, because the underlying injury that required surgery in the first place was work related, we settled her work comp case for medical bills plus $20,000.

This was not a record breaker, but given the nature of the injuries it was definitely a victory. The primary reason any offer was made at all on the case was that we destroyed the Defendant's medical expert in deposition the week before trial. He is the type of doctor that believes most, if not all legal cases against doctors are frivolous, in the deposition he all but admitted the doctor was negligent.

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements , Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

Recent wrongful death case that may be filed as either a Missouri or Illinois lawsuit is the result of a December 2006 fatal accident of our client's late husband when fell to his death when working on a water tower. The possible defective clip to his safety harness failed to close and secure him as debris from welding builds up in the closing mechanism. Allegedly, the employer, Phoenix Fabricators, failed to replace the safety equipment, additionally, the safety clip itself may have been poorly designed or malfunctioned.

Its a disturbing case to me especially considering his death could have been prevented by taking the required safety measures. OSHA has issued several citations to Phoenix Fabricators based on their continued failure to follow safety measures.

These tank workers have high risk jobs and they deserve the proper safety equipment. Below is a link to an article talking about the dangers of the job and the experiences of several workers for Phoenix Fabricators.

General Article about Water Tank Workers

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Injury Law , Premises Liability , Workers' Compensation , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

In a tragic truck accident, Josh Hancock crashed his car into the back of a tow truck asissting another driver. However, he was drunk and his BAC result was twice the legal limit.

ESPN Article on Death

Hancock was not only drunk but he was speeding and using his cell phone at the time of the car accident. So what does his family do? They sue everybody! yes, they are suing Shannon's restaurant for serving Hancock alcohol, the towtruck driver for doing his job, and the owner of the broken down vehicle.

The lawyer for the towtruck driver claims he will file a countersuit against Hancock's estate for brining this meritless lawsuit against the towtruck driver.

STL Today - Car Accident Death Article

I hear the term frivilous lawsuit thrown around a lot by people who dislike lawyers and lawsuits, but this is truly a frivilous case for obvious reasons. It is not very often malicious prosecution claims against people filing these types of lawsuits make the news and it will be interesting to see how this case plays out.

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

Posted In: Injury Law

Bookmark:

The FDA recalls the Kugel Hernia Patch because the plastic memory coil that was used to open it is dangerous as it has broken and led to injuries in many patients. The hernia patch is placed over the layer of skin that insulates the gastrointestinal tract known as the peritoneum; therefore, the broken coil can cut into the peritoneum and the bowels, stomach, or intestines.

Cutting through the peritoneum and cuts into the bowels can cause gastrointestinal or septic leakage into the peritoneum and outside of it as well. This can and will cause a serious infection, renal failure, peritonitis, and a multitude of other rapidly progressing medical problems.

FDA Product Recall Site for Kugel Patch

KUGEL PATCH INFORMATION

National Library of Medicine Article on Kugel Patch Procedure

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

Posted In: Injury Law

Bookmark:

December 2003, my client was in a car accident when she was rear ended by a driver who claimed she hydroplaned and lost control of her vehicle. My client sustained about 10k in medical bills, however, the other driver's insurance company, The Hartford Insurance Company, would only offer a few thousand over my client's medical bills.

In February 2007 in the face of a low offer (but more than the medial bills) by the insurance company we took the case to a jury and recovered $30,000, more then double the offer on the case and three times the amount of the medical bills.

This is not a huge case, but it is significant, many lawyers want to take the easy money and not take the risk of pushing for just compensation as the result of the personal injury sustained. We do not take this approach and will take a case to trial whether it is large or small.

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements , Injury Law , Automobile Accidents

Bookmark:

Nursing negligence caused my client to suffer 2nd Degree burns on his legs when a home health nurse negligently allowed his shower water to get too hot. Daniels is parapalegic and needs assistance in and out of the shower which includes the duty to set the water temperature, especially due to Daniel's lack of feeling in his legs.

As a result Daniels was treated for his burns and endured several infections through the burns causing a significant impact on his health. We were able to secure a significant settlement for Daniels just a few weeks before trial and after consistent zero offer from the insurance company as they claimed Daniels burned himself for monetary gain and that he lacked feeling in his legs and therefore suffered only a little.

Our medical expert was highly critical of the procedure the home health nurse followed and her lack of oversight during the shower preparation process. The grueling discovery process finally revealed enough evidence to show that despite any desperate claims of self infliction of the wounds, there was so much evidence of negligence established by us that they had to settle or risk a potential multi million dollar verdict after a trial.

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

Posted In: Verdicts & Settlements , Injury Law , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

Bus accident resulting in personal injury: Our injured client was struck by a Greyhound bus at a rest stop when he walked between parked cars and failed to look before crossing. Several other law firms refused to take the case, and understandably so, because he admitted to not looking where he was going.

Attention to detail by us lead us to this great settlement. Upon extensive investigation we learned that the Greyhound bus recently had brake problems and we tracked down a witness who was on the bus that was willing to testify that the brakes were malfunctioning and that was the reason the bus stopped at the rest stop to begin with.

Of course, Greyhound's records did not indicate this problem, however, the bus driver admitted to the brake issue during his deposition. Our client incurred about $12,000 in medical bills and the settlement reached was excellent considering the comparative fault and damages.

Madison County Illinois Court Record of Greyhound Bus Lawsuit

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements , Injury Law , Automobile Accidents , Truck Accidents

Bookmark: