Missouri Injury Law Blog

In a previous Missouri personal injury lawyer blog post I discussed the facts and circumstances of my Illinois workers compensation client who witnessed the traumatic death of a co-worker as the result of a fall from a water tower. As a result of witnessing this tragic death incident, which has turned into a million dollar Illinois wrongful death case and Illinois products liability action, my client suffered post traumatic stress.

This Illinois workers compensation case recently settled for $32,500.00 to compensate my Illinois personal injury and workers compensation client for the traumatic stress endured as a direct result of the work related injury.

Many Illinois personal injury lawyers may have never pursued the claim because there was no direct physical injury. In fact, my client's first Illinois personal injury lawyer did not pursue the claim and recommended a settlement to him of less than $10,000. I took over the case and through psychological testing and other important case work we were able to evidence the psychological injury and settlement the case for more than 3 times more what his first Illinois work comp lawyer recommended.

An Illinois or a Missouri work comp case or claim require one very simple element to have a claim in the first place, a work related injury. That injury can be physical or mental. Often times a mental injury is drastically more debilitating than a physical injury.

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements , Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

Every year Missouri Lawyers Weekly comes out with their Missouri Top Settlements and Verdicts Issue espousing the largest Missouri personal injury settlements and verdicts for the previous year. According to the January 28, 2008 issue of Missouri Lawyer's Weekly, the largest Missouri medical malpractice settlement for 2007 was 2 million dollars. Due to confidentiality agreements with our 2007 medical malpractice settlement, we did not submit our settlement to Lawyers Weekly; however, our 2007 Medical malpractice settlement was 4.5 million dollars, more than double the highest reported Missouri medical malpractice settlement reported in 2007. This was a Missouri wrongful death case as a result of the alleged negligent medical treatment of post gastric bypass complications. This entry and the other entry discussing this case disclose limited information allowed by the confidentiality agreement.

Co-counsel with me was St Louis injury lawyer Robert Pedroli of Pedroli and Gauthier, we worked side by side on this case from the beginning. Often personal injury lawyers will bring in co-counsel after approval by the client based on the size, complexity, and time commitment required on these multi million dollar medical malpractice and wrongful death injury cases.

Recently, a client asked me what is the difference between a personal injury judgment and a settlement and which is better? Clearly, a settlement is an agreement between the parties often prior to a trial or judgment to resolve the case. A judgment is entered by the court after a bench trial or as in injury case more often a jury verdict. However, the more important distinction is that a personal injury settlement is usually paid out immediately in a lump sum or as part of a structured settlement. A Judgment may be subject to significant reduction to bring it within the Missouri statutory damage caps or because the judge rules it was excessive, a judgment is often appealed by the losing party, especially if it is a large judgment, which usually stays collection during the pendency of the appeal and may even result in overturning the judgment and thus no collection, and, most importantly, a judgment must be collected as it is not always voluntarily paid by the defendant. The judgment may exceed the defendant's insurance limits, it may exceed their assets, or they may even declare bankruptcy. Therefore, a large settlement is worth more than a large judgment.

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

Posted In: Verdicts & Settlements

Bookmark:

While working for Phoenix Fabricators my client's late husband, Jason, was repairing weld lines on a water tower in Arkansas. He lost his footing and his lanyard and safety clip failed, allowing him to fall to a tragic and untimely death. The surviving spouse and children settled the Illinois workers compensation claim, and have a cause of action against the lanyard manufacturer through a wrongful death products liability lawsuit. The employer was found by OSHA to have violated several regulations including failure to have safety nets among several other serious violations. Unfortunately, in most cases and in this current case, worker's compensation is the sole remedy available to an employee against their employer for injuries sustained on the job. This does not prevent us from filing a lawsuit against any responsible or negligent 3rd party.

Generally, the location of the injury or death dictates the applicable law, so in this case, Arkansas work comp law presumptively applied. However, under Arkansas law this wrongful death case would be capped at about $200,000, an amount that is disgustingly inadequate for the death of a young man. However, Under Illinois worker's compensation law the wrongful death the cap is much higher, therefore, the work comp claim was filed in Illinois seeking work comp benefits pursuant to Illinois law. We argued that Illinois work comp law applied because the decedent was an Illinois resident and was hired over the phone while he was at his home in Illinois.

This allowed us to convince the worker's compensation insurer to agree that Illinois law may very well apply and lead to a favorable worker's compensation settlement of $500,000.00 present cash value. The decent was entitled to payments over a number of years which would have amounted to more than $1,000,000.00.

The 3rd Party Case: We are currently pursuing the manufacturer of the defective lanyard for a negligence and products liability/wrongful death case for the death of our client's husband. This will allow us to recover damages in excess of worker's compensation's limited remedies that are capped by regulation in favor of employers. This case against the lanyard manufacturer is a multi million dollar case to compensate my client and her family for the death of her husband and her children's father.

ILLINOIS WORKER'S COMPENSATION & WRONGFUL DEATH CASE - Initial Blog Entry

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

Posted In: Verdicts & Settlements , Products Liability / Dangerous Products , Workers' Compensation , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

We recently settled a Missouri personal injury case stemming from a motorcycle accident outside of Union Missouri. One of the at fault drivers had a policy of insurance for $100,000 and a few months after filing a Missouri motorcycle accident personal injury lawsuit, the driver's insurance tendered the entire amount of insurance coverage. There were some disputes as to which car caused the accident as one witness claimed that a car abruptly stopped in the left lane causing the driver mentioned above to swerve to the right and strike my client on his motorcycle.

The vehicle that stopped abruptly did not stay around and was never identified, therefore, under Missouri law, it is a uninsured motorist and the injured party's uninsured motorist coverage applies for the negligent actions of the unidentified motorist. Thus, we are pursuing the injury claim beyond the policy limits above by seeking compensation from the motorcyclist's uninsured motorist coverage insurance carrier.

Word to the wise, as a St Louis personal injury lawyer and a motorcyclist myself, I strongly recommend to all motorcyclists to max out your insurance coverage as you may be hit by someone with minimum insurance coverage or even no coverage and your only remedy will be your own uninsured and under insured motorist coverage.

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements , Motorcycle Accidents

Bookmark:

This week we secured a Plaintiff's verdict in favor of a bicyclist who was hit at an intersection when a driver of a pick up truck made a right turn and crossed the shoulder the cyclist was in, causing her to hit the side of his truck, get thrown from her bike, and break her elbow. The driver claimed he saw her, made and extra wide turn, and that she panicked and lost control of her bike all by herself. Additionally, the police officer, who did not witness the accident, testified against the cyclist essentially claiming the bike accident and injury was her own fault.

Despite the evidence presented by the defense we were able to overcome that bias many people have, and clearly the police officer had, towards bicyclists and our right to use the roadways and the degree of care motorists must exercise towards bike riders.

Almost no cases, at least none that are available in court records or that I know of, regarding collisions between cars and bicycles are taken to trial in Missouri. In fact, many Missouri lawyers drop bicycle accident cases or do not aggressively pursue them. The simple fact of the matter is, despite some good statutes in Missouri protecting bicyclists, there are still many laws that could be passed to protect cyclists. For example, Missouri statutes require a safe distance be maintained when passing a bicyclist, however, there is no state statute regarding the duty of a motorist to yield to a bicyclist traveling in the shoulder when making a right turn. As in the case above, the entire case had to be tried on a "failure to keep a careful lookout" legal theory as the judge would not allow me to argue failure to yield, claiming that there is no specific law creating that duty. A point that we are appealing along with a few others in an attempt to clarify Missouri bicycling law and the legal responsibility in Missouri of drivers towards bicyclists.

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

Posted In: Verdicts & Settlements , Bicycle Accidents

Bookmark:

While on the job my client was injured as a pedestrian after he was crossing Delmar Blvd in St Louis, Missouri, near its intersection with Union. The light for eastbound traffic was red but there was a green arrow for eastbound traffic to turn North (left) at Union. As my client, a pedestrian, was crossing the road, about four car lengths from the crosswalk, a stopped driver waved him to walk by, as he stepped into the turn lane he looked left and the roadway was clear, as he was crossing a speeding car that was trying to beat the light struck him and fractured his left tibia (lower leg). The police responded to the car and pedestrian accident injury and the report was inconclusive as to fault.

Being that my client was on the job at the time of the car and pedestrian collision, this was immediately claimed through Missouri workers compensation and the employer's work comp insurer covered my client's medical expenses and lost wages. Additionally, we pursued a 3rd party claim, for personal injury sustained in St Louis Missouri, on behalf of our client against the negligent car driver for striking him as a pedestrian.

As a personal injury lawyer I have to recognize that often my client's cases have weaknesses, and this case was no exception. The weaknesses in this case included that he was crossing Delmar without using the cross walk. Additionally, he partially relied on an unknown driver waving him through traffic to rely that the roadway was clear. On the other hand, the other driver was speeding and claimed he was heading to church, however, in order to go to his church he would have had to head south on Union. This combined with several other inconsistencies that I highlighted in the driver's deposition testimony battered his credibility and helped secure a favorable personal injury settlement.

We were able to resolve the workers compensation case and the 3rd party liability case for about $90,000 combined. We were able to maximize client recovery by minimizing the workers compensation lien on the 3rd party liability case. The 3rd party liability case settled favorably about 30 days before trial.

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements , Workers' Compensation

Bookmark:

My client, Kevin, was involved in a St Louis Missouri car and truck accident after the driver of a truck lost control of his vehcile on Highway 44 near Antire Road in St Louis County. The driver that lost control of his truck and hit my client's car claimed a large semi truck caused the accident by cutting him off and causing him to lose control of his truck and thus striking my client's car. The collision caused my client to lose control of his vehicle, spin out, and hit the median.

As the result of the two truck drivers' negligence, Kevin sustained a knee injury consisting of a torn meniscus cartilage. This injury required minor surgery and physical therapy amounting to about $14,000 in medical bills.

A claim was made against the insurer for the pickup driver, Progressive Insurance, and my client's uninsured motorist coverage, Fireman's Fund, to cover the negligence of the unidentified semi truck driver. Many personal injury lawyers would have only made a claim against the primary truck driver as the only evidence of the large semi truck driver's negligence was the pickup driver's own statement to the police about the semi truck cutting him off.

Aggressive pursuit of my client's primary claim and the pursuit of the uninsured motorist claim yielded a result over and above the primary at fault driver's insurance limit of $25,000. Instead we were able to recover additional amounts over the $25,000 insurance limit and ultimately recover a $55,000 personal injury settlement for our client.

DEMAND LETTER - Personal Injury Auto Accident - Demand to Liability Insurer and Uninsured Motorist Carrier

National Transportation Library - Large Truck Accident Causation

Missouri Uninsured Motorist Report

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

Posted In: Our Injury Cases , Verdicts & Settlements

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:

Car accident in Chesterfield Missouri on Long Road with questionable liability as there were conflicting witness accounts as to whether the intersection traffic light was green or had a green arrow. Our client made a left turn pursuant to a green arrow and was broad-sided. Client suffered a broken leg and knee requiring a patella implant. After full recovery from the other driver's insurance we were able to recover $100,000 (policy limits) from our client's under-insured motorist coverage despite set-off clauses in the policy and the insurance company's claim that the policy payout was set-off by the recovery from the other driver. The insurance company settled for the UIM policy limit.

What is Set-off in this situation? After a victim of injury resulting from a car accident recovers from the other party's insurance company in full (i.e. the other at fault party only had $25,000 in coverage) and that amount does not fully compensate the injury victim, then if the victim had under-insured motorist coverage (as our client did in this case) then the under-insured coverage carrier can sometimes take a set-off against the coverage amount the victim had. In this case, the under-insured carrier tried to claim that since $25,000 was recovered from the at fault party, then that amount should be deducted from the $100,000 under-insured coverage therefore they should only have to pay out $75,000. We were able to prevent that in this case due to a strict reading of the insurance policy and specifically it's under-insured and set-off clauses and they paid out the full $100,000 to our client as the set-off clause was ambiguous and therefore unenforceable.

MISSOURI INSURANCE SET-OFF CASE LAW
See Zemelman v. Equity Mut. Ins. Co., 935 S.W.2d 673 (Mo. App. WD 1996) Court read the policy’s UIM “set-off” provision against the policy’s “other insurance” provision and found it ambiguous because the language described the UIM as “excess over any other collectible insurance.”

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

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

This week in St Louis Missouri after a two day jury trial a city jury awarded my client actual and punitive damages as a result of personal injury after a man intentionally drove his car into him.

In March 2006 after a disagreement the parties had about another issue Sikman walked to his car and verbally told Toroslu to get out of his way or he was going to run him down. Toroslu remained next to the vehicle asking Sikman to wait for the police to resolve their disagreement, however, Sikman got into his car, made a sharp left turn, and struck Toroslu knocking him to the ground.

Toroslu did not plan on filing a lawsuit against Sikman as he was not hurt that bad and only bruised and scraped. However, Sikman filed a lawsuit against Toroslu for battery and property damage claiming that Toroslu punched his car mirror wanting about $600 in damage and punitive damages. Therefore, it was only natural to file a counterclaim as part of defending a frivolous lawsuit.

Frivolous lawsuit is a term used a lot but in most cases it is used to describe a lawsuit that someone simply does not like and is actually not frivolous. People often put that stamp on lawsuit s that they disagree with despite having legal and factual merit.

The lawsuit filed by Mr. Sikman is a perfect example of a truly merit-less and frivolous lawsuit. Without any evidence, he claimed that the run down of my client never occurred and the mirror of his car was damaged as a result of Toroslu allegedly punching it. He had no witnesses to support his claim, and even better yet, after brief investigation I found four independent witnesses who all saw the incident and each and every one of them agreed with Toroslu's version of being intentionally run down by Sikman. But wait, it gets better! All the witnesses testified that Sikman tried to bribe them with cash and gifts to get them to testify in favor of him; what a piece of work.

Even after all of this evidence came out at trial, Sikman still allowed his claims to go to the jury, and of course, the jury rejected his claim against Toroslu. Additionally, we filed a counterclaim on behalf of Toroslu as part of the defense of this frivolous claim by Sikman, we stipulated to $1 in actual damages as Toroslu was hardly injured from the altercation; thus we were able to get a punitive damages award of $750; 750 times the actual damages of $1 that we claimed.

What is next? Sikman's lawyers have vowed to fight the punitive damages award and force Toroslu to spend more money on legal fees and expenses; over what? $750? it is crazy.

Based on the evidence presented at trial and the verdict reached by the jury, we now have an excellent malicious prosecution claim we will file on behalf of Toroslu seeking attorney fees spent on defending Sikman's obnoxious and patently frivolous claim and seek additional punitive damages for the malicious prosecutio