In a second case a Colorado woman who allegedly feigned a mental disability to get excused from jury duty is being charged criminally. The judge was one of the listeners of a radio show that she called into. Apparently she started with this, “I just want to make a confession….”

http://bcove.me/p2l3mjbk

It seems terrorism coupled with the fear that goes hand-n-hand with economic uncertainty will justify all sorts of ways to trim individual freedom. Government overspending, no matter how justified it seems, comes with a high price. One of those costs is anger followed by terrorism, then by more spending to protect the general public followed by more curtailing of individual freedom. In the name of safety no longer are we safe from the ever present intrusive eye. The airport has become one of my least favorite places to be. Here is one more reason to hate air travel.

The Des Moines International Airport will now be home to the latest and greatest body scanners.  The Quad City airport has them. These surveillance electronics use Advanced Imaging Technology that bounces radio waves off the human body to detect anything that shouldn’t be there. Breast implants included? I'm not sure. Read the story by KWQC.

• Here is one from Milan, Italy and from the Super Bowl.
• Follow this link to see the different technology images produced.
• Manufacturer says full body scanners at airports are a valuable tool in fighting terror, Cleveland, The Plain Dealer, Leila Atassi
• Increased Lobbying by Manufacturers of Full Body Scanners, The Progressive, Elizabeth DiNovella
• Super Bowl Command Center for Security

If you're having a problem coming up with that one gift for the person who has everything, why not buy your own, full body scanners being sold online at Alibaba.com. 

Then there is a recent assault case at the Ankeny Wal-Mart. Police report two woman assaulted a female security guard at the Ankeny Walmart store at 1002 SE National Avenue about 4:00 pm, they don’t report on what day. What’s interesting is the surveillance store footage has a very clear picture of the two woman. See KCCI’s story, Do You Recognize These Women? Of course a photographs of customers is a long way from proving these are the same people who assaulted the guard, but it demonstrates that whenever there is the accusation of criminal activity the first line of offense and defense may be the surveillance cameras. 

Whether it’s a criminal case, a car accident or a slip-n-fall case, attorney’s need to visit the scene and look around for what may be the best witness money can find. The same can be said of those accused of a crime. Go to the scene and look around to see if there are surveillance cameras present. If so tell your lawyer and allow them to obtain the evidence. 

The challenge with video surveillance footage in a digital age will be quality of the images shown, the chain of custody and spoliation of evidence. Frost & Sullivan have an interesting white paper on the subject. See Frost & Sullivan, Using Video Surveillance As Evidence, Capturing And Storing The Best Video For Evidence. What I find interesting about this white paper is the expectation of protection argument being suggested and how that might impact retailers whose cameras provide poor quality making the evidence unreliable and therefore not admissible. Why have the camera and create an expectation of protection when what the camera produces is useless? Another reason why this subject is timely is the growing use of traffic ticket surveillance cameras in Cities across the United States. (The Problem With Legacy Surveillance Systems)

These cameras will provide evidence for many kinds of cases and I'm guessing there will be a push to make the video public with its posting on the Internet. 

Resources:

• Video Surveillance Evidence: Are Digital Copies Admissible, Pursuit Magazine
• Court Allows Defendant to Rely on Surveillance Evidence
• Use of Video Surveillance Evidence to Support Employee Discipline, Maiello Brungo & Maiello, Attorneys discussing collective bargaining agreements and how those agreements treat surveillance of employees. See Brewers & Maltsters, Local Union #6 et. al. vs Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,  2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13292 (D.C. Cir., 2005)
• BC Injury Law And ICBC Claims Blog,
• The Documentalist, Admissability (sic) of Digital Data in the Court Room Outside of the US
• Prosecutor: Surveillance footage no help in solving case of heroin missing from evidence locker, Chicago Tribune, placement of the camera is important because in this case someone parked a food delivery truck so it blocked the lone surveillance camera’s view of the evidence locker allowing 3 kilos of heroin to be removed. 

Man shoots nail into his brain, posts it to Facebook from ambulance. 

Lawyers are constantly having to deal with what clients post on FB. Clients post inappropriate things on FB all the time. There is a disconnect between the reality of what they say on the one hand in a lawsuit and what they post on FB. Defense lawyers know it as do Plaintiff lawyers. The admissions go both ways and so lawyers on both sides immediately march to FB to see what the other lawyer's client is publicly stating. 

A case that just came to my attention was a drunk driver bragging on FB about how much he's drank and how fast he was travelling before the crash that mangled his passenger. His insurance company paid the limits of $100,000 to the injured passenger.

Get a clue folks, if you're involved in a lawsuit shut down your FB page.

The article written by Rick Ruggles of the World-Herald out of Omaha, explores the dangers, past and present, of farming in rural America. While the article points to engineering as making farming safer it fails to point out how lawyers have contributed to pressuring the re-engineering of farm equipment to make it safer.

Like it or not, lawsuits have done much to make farming a safer profession.

  The three examples that come to mind are unshielded PTO shafts, augers and tractors sold without rollover protection (ROPS). Those three pieces of farm machinery did more damage to limbs and took more lives than probably any other dangers in farming; one still does. Manufacturers packed the standard writing organizations with like-minded engineers who argued changes weren’t feasible. Farmers continued to die while lawyers poured their own funds into litigation suing manufacturers to force loftier engineering standards that ultimately resulted in safer farming equipment.

Of course farmers should hug us not hate us. 

So say you hate us all you want, but we ain’t going away and it has everything to do with life and limb compromised by unsafe products and services. And as personal injury lawyers we know better than to simply catalogue the progress without following the money; our money and what it’s done for farm safety. Turn us away from the courthouses and you shortchange yourself and increase the risks you face while farming. It's pretty simple and sometimes referred to as the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

• Suffocation from quick sand like corn or beans in a bin
• Unshielded PTO shafts
• Tractors on uneven ground and rolling over crushing the driver
• Unshielded Auger Power Shafts
• Being kicked by an animal
• Being overtaken by cold weather in an unprotected location
• Being crushed by machinery
• Losing a limb from working around pinch points and other moving parts
• Being overcome by anhydrous ammonia
• Falling from heights without a fall protection harness
• Being in an accident on the rural farm-to-market roads while driving heavy equipment
• Dying from exhaustion after putting in long hours during harvest

  ---

ARTICLES OF INTEREST

• NSC: Data Still Shows Dangers of Farming, Editorial Staff
• Danger on the farm, Rick Ruggles, World-Herald Staff Writer
• Farmed And Dangerous, Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform
• Accidents a reminder of farming dangers, Jennifer Ewoldt, The Quad-City Times
• Farm Safety, Kids Health
• The Dangers of Farming, Local Harvest
• The Dangers of Industrial Farming, Bryan Welch, Mother Earth News

A second roll-over car accident takes place in Chamberlain, S.D. reportedly killing a northwest Iowa man, Leon Contreras of Estherville, Iowa. The driver is described as 37-year-old Ramon Castillo; neither man is described as wearing a seatbelt, although no details are given about what happened to cause the accident. 

As you can see each of these rollover case is different; seldom are two the same. In the first you have one young driver who could be considered the at-fault driver and with no passengers she would have the only claim. She would file with her own insurance company under the medical pay section of her policy. Beyond getting paid medical bills there is nothing to be paid for personal injury unless she can show there is something wrong with the road, the car she's driving or there is another vehicle with a bad driver.

In the second accident, the passenger’s estate (he is reported to have died), would file a claim with the driver’s auto insurance company and if he has low limits of coverage he may also file with the passenger underinsured motorist coverage policy. Of course if the driver is uninsured and the passenger had automobile insurance then his estate’s administrator will file under the uninsured motorist coverage.

In the third accident the oil service field worker was in the course of his employment at the time of his rollover accident so he would have several avenues to consider for personal injury coverage. First is the workers’ compensation insurance and that’s an easy one. The second depends on whether he was forced off the road by another car or not. If so then there is a third-party case against the at-fault driver and owner of the at-fault car. The next claim as you can see had to do with his claim of receiving shoddy treatment that fell below the standard of care in Wyoming.

So there you have it three different rollover accidents with three different results and places to file insurance claims. And you wonder why they call this “the practice of law”? Note, the operative word is practice. 

Black Hawk County, Iowa - What caused the driver to not see the oncoming truck and to pull out right in front of it on Highway 63? The accident is described as involving an F-250 Pickup truck and a Toyota Corolla – a fight weighing heavily in favor of the Ford. The Toyota being driven by one Joseph Pink pulls out from C57 and attempts to cross the southbound lanes of Highway 63 just as Garth Harold Beatty in his 1999 Ford pickup truck towing a trailer is crossing C57 at that intersection. The inevitable occurs with Mr. Beatty’s truck t-boning the little Toyota. Apparently Mr. Pink died in the crash and a passenger Mr. Harold Beatty was injured and taken to Allen Hospital. I used to work with a lawyer Sam Beatty in Waterloo. He was really a nice guy; I liked him a lot.

Ten things we want to know from the accident investigation:

1. We would want to know if there was an obstruction to the view of Mr. Pink.
2. We would want to know the speed of the Beatty truck?
3. We want to know how long any skid marks are along with where they start and stop.
4. We want to know the initial point of impact.
5. We want to know the crush depth into the Toyota.
6. We want to know if Mr. Pink was distracted while driving.
7. We want to know if any driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
8. We want to know the chemical tests from the autopsy report and any administered to the other driver.
9. We want to view the scene and photograph it.
10. We want to interview any passengers.

Things to do right now:

1. Get the ISP Technical Investigation Report with Photographs.
2. Visit the accident scene.
3. Talk with as many witnesses as you are able.
4. Photograph the vehicles involved.
5. Photograph the scene.
6. Look in the vehicles for evidence showing the whereabouts of the passengers prior to the collision.

There are a lot more questions to be answered but this is a start. What we are evaluating is negligence of all drivers and the landowners who have a duty to mow their weeds. Remember right now you want to prove the facts not your case. Your case will be proven, or not, when you gather and preserve the facts.

The Iowa State Patrol describes the accident this way:

NAMES HAVE BEEN RELEASED, VEHICLE 1 WAS WB ON C57, AS VEH 1 ATTEMPTED TO CROSS THE SB LANES OF HWY 63 HE WAS STRUCK BROADSIDE BY SB VEH 2, VEH 2 WAS A PICKUP PULLING A TRAILER, VEH 1 ENTERED WEST DITCH SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION, VEH 1 CAME TO REST IN DITCH FACING NORTH, VEH 2 ALSO ENTERED WEST DITCH AND FLIPPED COMING TO REST ON ITS TOP FACING NORTHWEST, THE TRAILER SEPARATED FROM VEH 2 COMING TO REST PARTIALLY ON TOP OF VEH 2.

Follow this link to read the Iowa State Patrol’s preliminary report. 

Is the lawsuit in which you're involved legitimate? Well, that depends on who you talk to. You assume it's not legitimate, but perhaps you aren't correct. I say that because you can't possibly know every aspect of the law when you're not a lawyer or a judge and haven't researched the law's background. People think anytime they are sued that the case isn't legitimate, but those on the other side would disagree. And there are many instances where someone claimed they were sued in a 'bogus' case, but end up with a judgment against them. Emotions aside, this is America and our legal system is pretty open to many types of claims to which you and I may agree to disagree on whether or not public policy should allow such a suit, but they are still legitimate under the current state of the law.

If you surreptitiously recorded a conversation turn it over to your lawyer and let the lawyers decide if what you have is valuable or worthless (illegal?) evidence. Better yet, before you record the conversations ask your lawyer if what you want to do is going to get you in trouble. 

For additional reading see these posts:

Should I give a recorded statement to the insurance adjuster?

www.lombardilaw.com/.../should-i-give-a-recorded-statement-to-the-...

No, not until you have had a chance to speak with a lawyer. Why? Because frankly you don't know what you're doing and how the insurance adjuster will trick ...

What's the harm in giving the other guy's insurance company a ...

www.lombardilaw.com/.../whats-the-harm-in-giving-the-other-guys-...

After 26 years of practicing law I can think of only two reasons why insurance company adjusters want to talk with the person asking their company for money; ...

Do you have to give the insurance company's adjuster a recorded ...

www.lombardilaw.com/.../do-you-have-to-give-the-insurance-compa...

Oct 6, 2009 – There is nothing wrong with refusing to give a recorded statement to the opposing adjuster. If your lawyer says to do it then do it, but while ...

Family Law: Electronic surveillance of wife's bedroom activity ...

www.lombardilaw.com/.../family-law-electronic-surveillance-of-wife...

Dec 23, 2008 – Even before their marriage, Jeffrey and Cathy had recorded each other's... The Court found the content of the tape recordings was not the ...

After the wreck the other driver admitted it was his fault, but now he's ...

www.lombardilaw.com/.../after-the-wreck-the-other-driver-admitted-...

Witness statements need to be recorded. Take photographs of the damage to both vehicles and the intersection. - 515-222-1110 - 1300 37th Street, Suite 6 West ..

Client Trial-Deposition Preparation Blog

www.lombardilaw.com/blog/client-trialdeposition-preparation/

Oct 25, 2010 – Read any recorded statements you've given. Not everything is important but some

For a list of locations see below.

Traffic Camera Proves A Reliable Witness In Crashes, AP provided by KCCI-Channel 8

• Iowa Department of Transportation – Des Moines Area Traffic Speedmap and Cameras Link
• Iowa Traffic Webcams from Leonards Worlds
• Traffic Cameras by State – USA Russia Style link.
• Iowa Webcams link.
• Des Moines area links.
• Iowa Red Light Cameras Map link. 

Social networking spat ends in arson charges for woman, Des Moines Register

We thought proving ownership of the cow would be as easy as someone being honest and coming forward to admit ownership. But that's not how it's working in rural Iowa. Honesty about ownership is one concept you are not likely to find.

These are tough cases to prove as to who owned the cow. Ownership is extremely important and that means the lawyers need to be involved as quickly as possible.

Did law enforcement help? The Sheriff's are elected officials who look only so far probably not wanting to anger any of the locals. Not proving ownership in some ways gets them re elected. Law enforcement's paperwork on past instances where cows got out is in most instances, Sorry Charlie it's not available. The Sheriff's offices are little or no help. 

Local knowledge washes away with the filing of a lawsuit. If there is no lawsuit every farmer will know who’s cows regularly get out onto the highway and who has lousy fences. File suit and it’s like you are on another planet. Everyone has amnesia. The locals go mute because they are for the most part deaf, dumb and half blind.

Yet everyone knows how many cows they own, where they are and I'm sure someone took a tax-write-off for a dead cow. Still no one is missing a cow.

What about tax write-offs for death and depreciation schedules? You'd be surprised how many floods rural Iowa has and how many farmers keep their tax returns in locations in the house that flood. File one of these suits and you'll soon see the flooding in Iowa’s farm basements is Biblical. Noah must be living in the basements of Iowa's farms.

Anytime you read of such a case and either know the family involved or the family comes to you for advice DO NOT SIT ON THE CASE. If you don't know what to do get someone involved that does and do it quickly. If you really don't understand the case law or proof problems refer the case and move on with your practice. Like I said the proof problems are extremely difficult and the paper trails are for the most part in the hands of farmers who don't give them up very easily.

I’ll bet if I was rustling cattle everyone would know whose cow it is that I stole. Moooooo...

The local Sheriff, a farmer and their tax preparer. Iowa's best and brightest. Do as I say not as I do.

A snowy or icy condition in Iowa during the month of January in the first minutes of a storm isn’t in and of itself going to get anyone excited about your case. On the other hand if the shop owner has allowed snow and ice to accumulate for a week without walking outside and shoveling it, that might get someone interested in your case.

But have the building owner drain melting snow and ice across the walk to the entranceway door and you are now talking about an artificial condition that increases the risk of injury to customers. That’s a winner, but the 20” into the snow storm case isn’t. You get my drift. (Ooo bad pun.) 

So when a potential client phones a lawyer saying they tripped on something, then fell and injured themselves, but has no photographs of the condition and frankly have no clue about why they tripped – that case is going nowhere fast. That’s not a case we can take and it’s certainly not a case you can win. It won’t end up on my docket. 

Before you call the lawyer ask yourself this question: What did I trip or slip on and is it an artificial condition that increased the risk of injury?

And one more thing, don’t believe for a second that your case won’t be characterized by the insurance adjuster and the business owner as frivolous. Because it will be. There seems to be a huge disconnect between our clients thinking somehow the laws they voted for won’t be used against them because their case is - drum roll please - not frivolous. To the insurance industry your claim no matter what the facts is frivolous. Trust me you’re no different than the guy you characterized as having a frivolous lawsuit. So don’t assume for a second that you will be treated differently than other people – in this there is a huge disconnect.

So this week's call had this as a part of the discussion. I asked what made the woman fall and he said, "What difference should it make what made her fall?"

 Are you kidding me? Do unto others my friends, as you would have them do unto you. 

This is our challenge - how do you argue the Golden Rule, without arguing it? Or how do we change the Supreme Courts mind about being able to argue the Golden Rule?

You are all part of the McDonald’s Coffee Case Syndrome. Get used to it. Now can I Supersize that lawsuit sir? 

The idea that somehow the Iowa Supreme Court operates in secrecy is preposterous and leads me back to the Law of Molly. Whenever there is thunder, our dog Molly hides her head under the bed as if that alone will protect her. The photo is Molly after the thunder stopped and she finished hiding her head - just as the Vander Platts group wants you to do. Each is acting foolish.

In other news the Iowa Supreme Court got it right when they rejected the speedier but more secret process of taking away a lawyer’s license. See the Des Moines Register story, Court rejects lawyer suspension secrecy, by Lee Rood. 

Frankly Poor Mr. Galvis; I feel sorry for him. I’m not surprised he got nothing, because I’ve been talking about it now for quite some time. I don’t blame the lawyers at Worby, Groner, Edelman & Napoli Bern because they are in business to first pay the bills and second to make some kind of a profit. But how do lawyers make a profit with a $10,000 case when we have so many liens and subrogation interests to protect? As lawyers dealing with health insurance subrogation, child support liens, auto insurance medical pay subrogation interests, Medicare, Medicaid, Title XIX and employee benefit plans under ERISA we are left asking who we represent. 

But don’t blame the lawyers in this instance – no siree, because you voted for the people that passed all these laws that treat the injured person as if they were an afterthought. There aren’t enough lawyers in the legislature so point your finger in some other direction. We lawyers have a light bill to pay. It’s what you call staying in business in today’s legal environment. 

It's sort of like this, we all slaughter each other while those Senators in Washington slaughter us. So all hail to Caesar because he's alive, well and living the good life in the Capital City.

Join me in the ring and sing along with AC/DC and sing loud to those whom you voted for and for the lot those have cast upon you. Sing loud and long, sing Hail Caesar!

He be the count of Monte Cristo 

Could be a quake any day 
Maybe somebody from Siam 
Begin the era of a new rage 
Keeps lickin' all the honey 
Chewin' up the fat he rakes 
Instead of sending to the lions 
They cover him with praise 

All hail Caesar, Hail, Hail! 
All hail Caesar, Hail, Hail! 

Down at the epicenter 
Things started heatin' up 
Rockin' on the richter scale 
[Rockin' up the richter scale] 
Swinging in the chariot 
Around and around we go 
The senators rehearse the tale 
Starring in the coliseum 
Tied upon the rack 
Up comes the thumb of Caesar 
To stab you in the back 

All hail Caesar, Hail, Hail! 
All hail Caesar, Hail, Hail! 

Down at the epicenter 
Things started heatin' up 
Rockin' on the richter scale 
Swingin' in the chariot 
Around and around we go 
the Senators rehearse the tale 

Watch out Caesar, watch out Caesar 

[I said hail, I said hail! 
I said Hail, I said Hail! 

Hail 
Hail 
Hail 
Hail 
Hail 
Hail 
Hail 
Hail 
Hail ] 

[All hail Caesar, hail, hail! 
All hail Caesar, hail, hail! 
All hail Caesar, hail, hail! 
All hail Caesar, hail, hail! 

You need eyes in the back of your head boy, 
or you're dead.]

Again in very short order, the McDonald’s Verdict was brought into the coversation by two of my clients. Each of these people has a serious injury case, a personal injury case, where they believe their case is somehow much different than the issues in the McDonald’s case. There is no difference, but people are very good at convincing themselves a jury will somehow see their case in a different light. They won’t. At least not until people begin to understand the reason why McDonald’s got sued, why the verdict was correct and why reducing the verdict was clearly wrong. The McDonald's case was not frivolous; if it was then so is yours.

THE DELUSION: “I’m the Mother Theresa of personal injury; while Mrs. Liebeck is the Devil incarnate.”

Ronald didn’t get sued just because the coffee was hot; RM got sued because of the extremely high temperature of the food being served. Yeah, really there is a difference you morons. The coffee wasn't just hot, it was so hot that it could literally melt a person’s skin. When handled, and the top was either removed or came off, the contents weren’t just inconvenient; they were highly dangerous to any human being with a brain. Hot is hot, but when the contents are so hot that it can cause your skin to literally melt, then, (your morons) the contents aren’t even edible. Do you know what the word edible means and that food served is supposed to be edible? Get it, edible means you can eat it and isn't food you pay for supposed to be edible? Just like drinking acid, coffee at the temperature it was being served at on that day, can't be drank. It's inedibable! What do I have to do pour you a cup of acid to make you understand this concept? Are you really this inanely moronic? Why in Heaven’s name would a restaurant sell food that isn’t edible? Does that make sense to anyone who’s ever eaten out? How is serving a liquid drink that isn’t edible any different than serving a cup of acid?

Don't do what an idiot would do!

Give me a break! I'm so sick and tired of morons discussing this case that jumping off a bridge seems a whole lot more interesting.

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Anyone wanting to engage in less litigation seems to like mischaracterizing this case. It seems anyone selling products or services that kill people or that cause disease to a huge number of people who use the product or service, are trying to make this case seem outlandish to anyone that will listen. But the case makes complete sense and most people can’t start to understand why. You don't understand until it’s you on the receiving end of the hysteria that followed the verdict; and some you can't even then, comprehend the problem.

As my mother Dolly would say, "Are they stupid?"

Apparentlythey are Mom. I, as  a lawyer, have no interest in trying to fool people, including juries, by saying in my opening statement the McDonld’s verdict was wrong. It was right; and in this country, two wrongs still don’t make a right. So forget fantasy land and once upon a time, because your case is cut from the same cloth as was the McDonald’s suit. All of you have a McCase; my only question for you is, can I Supersize your brain?

Once Upon A Time

For Stefania, my very own fairy tale happy ever after.

Once upon a time I believed all kinds of things.

I believed in horses with horns

and even in horses with wings!

I thought at the bottom of the garden

fairies would cavort and play.

I thought that under every bridge there lived a troll

and, when on my own, I stayed well away.

It never occurred to me then that

a fairy collecting teeth was a curious beast.

The Sandman, Father Christmas, dragons and elves,

these now seem just as implausible at least.

I no longer believe in transmogrifying frogs

or that princes can only exist in threes.

The very idea of Rumplestiltskin just makes me laugh.

I now know better than to believe in any of these.

But there is one thing that I believed in then

that even, no especially, today I still believe is true.

There are some who would say "It is just a fairytale"

but I believe in happy ever after with you.

The idiots movie list

One day after the verdict, a local reporter tested the coffee at the McDonald's that had served Mrs. Liebeck and found it to be a comparatively cool 158 ...

Abnormal Use: The Stella Liebeck McDonald's Hot Coffee Case FAQ

Jan 25, 2011 ... The defective product caused the burns to Ms. Liebeck's body. .... McDonald's declined. Following the jury verdict and the trial court's ...

Abnormal Use: The Stella Liebeck McDonald's Hot Coffee Case FAQ

Jan 25, 2011 ... The defective product caused the burns to Ms. Liebeck's body. .... McDonald's declined. Following the jury verdict and the trial court's ...

The Untold Story - :: Injury Resolutions ::

The verdict generates the misguided belief that there is a "litigation crisis" in ... Mrs. Liebeck was a drive-through customer at an Albuquerque McDonalds. ...

The Untold Story - :: Injury Resolutions ::

The verdict generates the misguided belief that there is a "litigation crisis" in ... Mrs. Liebeck was a drive-through customer at an Albuquerque McDonalds. ...

Phoenix Personal Injury Attorney | McDonald's Hot Coffee Case ...

Dec 22, 2010 ... Mrs. Liebeck wrote to McDonald's asking the company to turn down the ... Post- verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at ...

The Truth About The McDonald's Coffee Case

When the verdict was reported in 1994, talk show hosts like Paul Harvey jumped on ... Ms. Liebeck asked McDonald's to pay her $20000 in medical expenses. ...

The Modern Civil Justice System (from "Class in America")

After she got out of the hospital, Mrs. Liebeck told McDonald's about her ... McDonald's demanded a retrial, claiming that the verdict was improper. ...

Before talking to the insurance adjuster or defense attorney or the case mismanager remember this from I Claudius, don't touch the figs.

The premise held by most clients is that this system of law is fair. They'll say they want only to be treated fairly. When representing themselves they make the assumption that when defense lawyers talk to you they will be fair. Well I'm here to tell you, you had better not trust in being treated fairly. I mean exactly that and it has nothing to do with whether or not the defense lawyer or the insurance company is dishonest. They don’t have to be “honest” and they aren’t trying to be “fair”. Fact is they are hoping you aren’t smart enough to ask the right questions so they don’t have to not answer you. You think I’m kidding? Hell no. I’m not and I can prove I’m right. Here let me prove it to you.

Defense work has nothing to do with treating people fairly. If it did you could come up with the name of at least one defense lawyer who has said in the past, "I don't think you're asking for enough, can I pay you more?" Or, "Did you know you're entitled under the law to be paid more for your damages?” Go ahead find me one insurance company representative that has said that in the entire history of insurance. Go ahead, think real hard; I can wait, go ahead and think harder.

Umnnn dee dum, dee-dum... Have you remembered one? No? I didn't think so. I've not heard anything like that in 30 years.

Updated: This is too funny. I had a link to an insurance company's YouTube ad and they actually took it down so I could not tag them with how deceptive it is. Can you believe it? Yeah that's what they do. They advertise when they need more money, lie to you the premium payer and then when we lawyers point it out they take down what they said to erase the lie. That's reality folks, that's the insurance industry. 

In other words the defense lawyer's job is to treat you in a way to take advantage of your ignorance of the law as well as your mistakes. Frankly because this isn't about fairness their job is to treat you unfairly. Ethically they can, do and must treat you unfairly as most people think about the idea of fairness.

Fairness dictates honestly and with openness and candor. But ethics require the lawyer to maintain confidences provided by the client. I as your lawyer have to be candid and open with my client and if you're my client I act ethically. But the insurance company's lawyer isn't your lawyer and you the injured person aren't his client. So candor isn't going to be happening between the two of you. That's not the hand of a friend reaching out to shake your hand; the handshake being a sign of friendship, but this one is not one from a friend. Never confuse friendliness with friendship. The two are not one and the same.

The defense attorney or the insurance company representatives are like the slithering snake that delivers the poison being slipped into the wine goblet from which the injured drink.  Now you understand the legal concept of "fairness".

How can you tell the case mis-manager from those who are there to help the injured worker?

• First see if the person the insurance company hired is breathing; if they are breathing then it's more likely than not that they are a mis-manager.
• Second see if they are breathing.
• Third, if they pass 1 and 2, then ask a question and if you get any sound coming from their pie-hole they are a mis-manager.
• Fourth, take a pulse, and if you get a reading they are a mis-manager.
• Fifth, ask who hired them; if it wasn’t you or your attorney chances are pretty good they are a case mis-manager.
• Sixth, ask them why they are there; if they give you an answer chances are they are a mis-manager.
• Seventh, ask them if they have every argued for payment of a higher weekly compensation rate for the injured employee. If they answer you with anything other than “Sorry, I have to call 911 I think I may be having a heart attack!” then they are a mis-manager.
• Eighth, ask who is paying them. If they don’t say they’ve won the Nobel Peace Prize, are independently wealthy and that their name is Mother Theresa, then chances are they are there to mis-manage your case.
• Ninth, ask for a reference from an injured worker. If they give you one then chances are the person who signed the reference is either dead, brain dead or locked in jail in a third world country.
• Tenth, if you get through the first nine rules but forget any of the rules see rule number 1.

1. Dying from causes unrelated to the work injury helps immensely because it puts them out of work.
2. You can stop talking to them.
3. You can refuse to consent to them coming into the exam room with you while the company doctor does their thing.
4. You can recognize that when they are being friendly they are not your friend.
5. You can have no casual conversations with them.
6. You can refuse to volunteer any information.
7. You can refuse to share any news with them about your personal life.
8. You can ask them for a reference by an attorney who represents injured workers.
9. If all else fails you can hire a lawyer or go back to numero uno.

As an injured worker receiving workers’ compensation benefits how do I recognize a case mis-manager?

First, they will appear human but make no mistake about it they aren’t.

Second, they will say things that make them sound like a caring human being, but make not mistake about it that is a concept foreign to their personalities.

What is the goal of the case mis-manager?

Their first goal is to discovery any information that can be used by the employer to pay no benefits.

If you’re already receiving benefits their next goal is to discovery any information that can be used by the employer to terminate your benefits.

If they can’t do that then they want to discovery personal information to be used to pay you less than the law requires.

Lastly, if they can’t figure out any personal information to be used to do any of the above then they will make it up, distort what you said or take what you said out of context to ingratiate themselves to the insurance company and employer. This allows them to continuously justify their bloated charges because the employer saves more money paying them outlandish salaries to lie and cheat rather than paying you what the law requires.

Is Steve Lombardi jaded after 30 years of listening to case mis-managers and insurance mal-adjusters?

Absolutely not; I love them. In fact I have an entire list of mis-managers and insurance mal-adjusters whose funerals I would love to attend. And why? Just so I can touch their cold dead bodies to make sure they are really dead.

FAQ

Q: After they screw me how can I learn how to be a case mis-manager?

A: Just about any insurance company or self-insured over-the-road trucking company loves to screw the working stiff, so the sky is the limit.

Q: Who hires case-mismangers?

A: Are you kidding me?

EMC – Where they make caring for your business our business.

Liberty Mutual  Where you can do just about everything right in your everyday life.

Workmans – America’s Worker’s Compensation Headquarters … for all your worker’s compensation needs.

TechInsurance – Fast coverage. Lasting Confidence.

Q: Who are the people that case mis-managers like to screw?

A: You come in all sizes, shapes, colors and professions. So watch and listen to Dropkick Murphys, Workers Song!

What about that "knowledge you can count on" pledge? After Merriam it sure seems to ring hollow.

Remember those Farm Bureau agents saying they make insurance simple? Here get caught up and listen to the agents telling you how simple they make insurance so you can feel good about your future; and then there is the make simple by providing knowledge you can count on. As you listen ask yourself if somewhere in there, there is a promise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFMnwpw-LLg

Here listen again to the Farm Bureau insurance made simple pledge and then let’s see how it plays out in real life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4DHSGeuQQE

Remember what you just heard. Come on it's all pretty simple to remember. Basically you can trust us to make it simple for you. Got it?

I argued this same issue in the early 80’s and it came out the same then. After you read the issue and the result, like me you’ll wonder why they call insurance sales a profession. Used car salesmen have a higher duty to the public than do insurance salespeople. Their only duty is to hand you an application, to bind the insurance when asked or instructed and to fax the application to the insurance company. Beyond that their days are taken up with saying “No”, cashing checks, buying plane tickets to insurance conferences and playing golf.

The Iowa Supreme Court has sided with an insurance agent in a case involving whether or not the agent had a duty to advise his clients as to the need for insurance coverage about which the clients had not inquired.

In considering an appeal brought by plaintiffs Timothy L. Merriam and Justine Merriam against their insurance agent, Steven Stonehocker, the high court affirmed a decision by a lower court that determined Stonehocker had not “breached his duty of care to act as a reasonably prudent insurance agent when he failed to advise and recommend that Timothy Merriam, a self-employed over-the-road truck driver, procure self-employment workers’ compensation insurance.”

“The plaintiffs contend Stonehocker‟s knowledge of Timothy‟s self-employed status and million dollar life insurance policy was sufficient to trigger a duty of inquiry on Stonehocker‟s part. The fact that Stonehocker was a trained and licensed insurance agent with arguably “superior knowledge as to what insurance products someone in [Timothy‟s] position would require to be adequately protected from injury or loss” cannot be the basis to find an implied agreement to expand Stonehocker‟s duty. If that were the case, then every trained and licensed insurance agent would have a duty to provide an assessment of all of an insureds‟ insurance needs, whether requested or not. As previously discussed, we have never held this to be the law in this state. Under the principles set forth in Langwith, the plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact exists that there was an expanded agency agreement requiring Stonehocker to advise the plaintiffs regarding self-employment workers‟ compensation insurance for Timothy. Because Stonehocker is not liable to the plaintiffs, Farm Bureau cannot be vicariously liable. The district court‟s ruling granting the defendants‟ motion for summary judgment is affirmed.2”

What happened to it being so simple? So if this is true then are we still in good hands and good neighbors of you know who?

Follow the link to read the decision. Citation: Merriam vs Farm Bureau Insurance Services, No. 08-1635 (Iowa 2011) Combatants (Attorneys): Marc Humphrey for the appellants and Brian Campbell for Appellees. Go Marc! Justice Cady wrote the decision. Lower court decision Affirmed. Ouch!

I wonder if Mr. and Mrs. Merriam wanted to be the buffalo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRS4shfH1Pw

Iowa Supreme Court: Agent not Required to Suggest Unrequested Coverage
Insurance Journal
The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed with that assertion. “The Merriams made no specific inquiry with respect to self-employed workers' compensation insurance ...
See all stories on this topic »

Sorry Charlie! Me no comprehend?

That was the question posed to me last week. Remember I'm from Iowa so my suggestings may not apply to you, assuming you're from some other state. Then again I could be right on.

I’m not sure exactly how to answer this question without appearing arrogant as opposed to simply trying to help, but it’s been asked before and it’s time once again to apply years of watching some get it right and other's live with a mistake.

Start off with who the lawyer has been in the past. Do you know the lawyers reputation for the work they do? Do you have a friend or co-worker you can speak to about their experiences? How about a friendly lawyer that is willing to talk and can vouch for a lawyer’s reputation. Like real estate, law is local; meaning laws are governed by the state, county and city governments; And since lawyers are licensed for matter such as these by state bar associations you need to know the local reputation of the lawyer.

Does the lawyer write publicly and put their reputation for honesty on the line with what they write? If not, you have to ask why. And if they do write, then read what they've written and ask yourself if you like their style and the way they think. After all the two of you have to get along. I pride myself on saying what I believe my clients need to hear not necessarily what they may want to hear. In other words this isn’t a popularity contest for me. Like me or not you’ll get advice that is practical and hopefully accurate. But that won’t always be true because garbage in means garbage out; and if you haven’t told the lawyer all the facts, then his or her advice won’t really be totally accurate.

And check the Iowa Bar Association website to see if there have been legitimate complaints on file with publicly published action on the part of the bar. If there is, read the notice because not all ethical action indicates the lawyer doesn’t know what they are doing just that they’ve made a mistake at one time or another.

Now let's go to the movies for an example of a bad lawyer rebuilding his reputation along with redeming his soul. Remember Frank Galvin? He was an alcoholic ambulance chaser that during the winding trail of investigating a medical malpractice case found his soul and in the end did what was right for his young brain damaged client. He found himself by fighting the good fight and seeing the light as he fought for her and against the mighty Archdiocese of Boston that ran a large and powerful Boston hospital. Sit and listen to his closing argument because it says as much about him as it says about his case. And maybe that is why we trial lawyers just can't seem to give up on you even when you've given up on us and this system of justice.

And by the way can you name the then young movie star who is cast as a courtroom observer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBD6FxrtJN0

So when someone throws their hat in the ring to be considered for a judgeship another box is drawn around lawyer critics. Say anything along the lines like, this lawyer isn’t qualified to sit on the bench and you’re clients may suffer should that lawyer be selected to be a judge. You see there is a conundrum involved with lawyers being openly critical of candidates for the court. So if anyone is waiting for lawyer-critics to emerge with a scathing attack on the court or on any one candidate stop waiting; because it’s not going to happen.

SHOULD IOWANS ELECT JUDGES BY POPULAR VOTE?

Now consider elections for judges like they have in Wisconsin. Electing judges creates a whole slew of other problems. If you don’t contribute to a successful lawyer’s campaign for judicial election, you run the risk of viewing every adverse ruling with an eye of suspicion. Have your winning opponent be a large contributor to the judge’s campaign and you read every losing decision with a jaundiced eye. Before you stand in court before a sitting judge that is up for election, you want to first make a contribution to his/her campaign war chest. Don’t contribute and your wonder how it might affect the way the judge views your case. They will say it won't affect their impartiality, but human nature being what it is, how can it not?

Even if it has no effect it still leaves a hint of suspicion and if you do contribute it has the appearance of impropriety. Do you want to choose which lawyer to hire based on how much he/she contributed to the last campaign of a sitting judge? I'm getting a headache just thinking about it. At some point common sense has to meet practical magic and the Iowa voters should wake up and smell the coffee.

BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

So when the Register’s Grant Schulte writes Gender diversity on Iowa’s high court is lacking, I have to roll my eyes and wonder how does the public view lawyers saying nothing in response. Do they believe our silence confirms their suspicions? Do they think the silence from male lawyers is proof of sex discrimination? Remember it wasn’t the male lawyers and judges who removed the one female sitting Justice on the Iowa Supreme Court, it was the voters.

IS SILENCE INDICATIVE OF ANYTHING? 

In being silent we have little choice. To do otherwise risks ethical sanctions or worse; tick off a judge and your clients suffer or so they might think. Did I lose because my lawyer didn’t keep his mouth shut about the Court? Criticize the female candidates and if they win you just screwed your clients. Lawyers sitting on the commission know which candidates are exaggerating their credentials, which ones can write and which aren’t gifted enough to sit on the bench. We know who has a sour disposition, which would have the right personality to create the right judicial temperament that advances rather than embarrasses Iowans and who doesn’t have the right stuff.

DON’T FIX WHAT ISN’T BROKEN

Like it or not the current system works. We’ve had very few problems with Iowa’s judiciary and if you’re waiting for me to criticize the justices, judges and judicial candidates you’re wasting your time reading this. It isn’t going to happen. Gender has nothing to do with which names were sent to the Governor. The list was compiled from which lawyers were the most qualified to serve the law. I may have a different list in my head, but no candidate got through that wasn’t qualified to serve the law. Several that weren’t on the final 9 were also qualified, but that’s for another day. There are times in life when you don’t get it all; you don’t get everything you want. And that has to be good enough, because democracy isn’t perfect. Democracy is imperfect and that’s what makes it work. Just be happy no unqualified candidate won a judicial election (God help us if that happens.) or was put on the list for political reasons; reasons that would be persuasive to laypeople but have nothing to do with being qualified to be a sitting judge. Remember, any idiot can contribute to a politician's campaign; but not many can fool a room of lawyers interviewing candidates for the list-of-three to send to the Governor. Lawyers know lawyers – and lawyers know who is qualified to do the work of the court. People with an ax to grind want to have the power to pick and choose judges based on politics – not judicial temperment - and that’s why voters get to elect legislative officials and not judges. The work of the court is too important to make it simply a popularity contest.

CONCLUSION

Judges and justices serve the law, not popular opinion. Judges have to be above public sentiment and to rule based on past precedent, black letter law and the Iowa Constitution. If you think it's easy then try and get into one of Iowa's law schools. That's your right. Judges don’t have the right to rule based on popular sentiment. And that’s what makes the Iowa judiciary work so well as the third branch of our State goverment.

So what do I think about those selected and those not selected? Wouldn’t you like to know?

Do you know your government?

• Can you name the three branches of our government?
• Can you name the Three Stooges? No Sarah Palin is not one of them.

Would electing Iowa’s judge$ be about $omething other than JU$TICE?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_vNwQ-i0fA

Separation of Powers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5TdkYrcZCg

What is jury duty?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea28nYnurQ8