TORT REFORM FACT V. FICTION (PART 3)

FICTION:  Medical malpractice litigation is forcing doctors out of practice. 

FACT:  There are currently 307 physicians per 100,000 people in the United States.  Since 1990, the number of physicians has increased 40 percent while the U.S. populations seen an increase of 18 percent.  The number of doctors licensed in the United States grows each year, and is far outpacing population growth. 

FICTION: Medical malpractice is driving physicians out of states without damage caps.

FACT:  The number of physicians in every state has increased, and there are actually more doctors in states without damage caps.  In the vast majority of states, the increase in physicians has either matched or outpaced population growth.  No data has been provided to support the theory that capping non-economic damages helps states attract or retain physicians. 

FICTION:  Damage caps lower doctors’ medical malpractice insurance rates. 

FACT:  If damages are capped, insurance companies pay out less money for awards, but they will no pass those savings to doctors in the form of lower premiums.  As pointed out on www.tortreformtruth.com the strongest example of this is in Texas.  Texas passed a restrictive damages cap in 2003.  Despite the enactment of the damages cap GE Medical Protective told the Texas Insurance Commissioner that caps had a negligible impact on rates while announcing a 19 percent increase in doctors’ premiums. 

GE Medical Protective acknowledged that “non-economic damages are a small percentage of losses paid.  Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0 percent.”  The president of the American Insurance Association has said that “we have not promised price reductions with tort reform.” 

If you are injured, don’t allow anyone to convince you that you shouldn’t file a lawsuit.  Allow Attorney Douglas V. Stoehr or Attorney Aaron Ling to evaluate the facts and circumstances surrounding your case to determine if a valid claim exists.  We will provide an honest and thorough evaluation of your claim.  Call us at (814) 946-4100.

TORT REFORM FACT V. FICTION (PART 2)

FICTION:  Lawyers attempt to get ridiculous verdicts that drastically outweigh actual damages.

FACT:  Corporations and insurance companies have been conducting a crusade for the past 50 years to depict injured victims as greedy liars with dollar signs in their eyes.  The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the 2005 median award for plaintiffs who won monetary damages in civil trials was $28,000.00; only 4 percent of all plaintiffs’ awards were more than one million dollars or more. 

Tort reform advocates also argue against punitive damages.  Punitive damages serve as a sanction for behavior that is judged to be particularly reckless.  Big business has spread the myth that juries are handing out multimillion-dollar awards left and right.  Punitive damages are not awarded as frequently as the tort reform advocates claim.  The Bureau of Justice found punitive damages were awarded to only 5 percent of all plaintiffs in civil trials.  The Supreme Court also found that:

1.       Punitive damages have not increased in the past several decades with the exception of adjustments for inflation.

2.      The amounts of punitive damages rendered by juries and judges are similar. 

Most punitive damages are awarded in lawsuits that involve businesses suing other businesses.  This fact makes it seem as if businesses are fine with punitive damages as long as they are the plaintiffs. 

FICTION:  Greedy plaintiffs and their attorneys abuse our judicial system by taking cases to courts that are likely to give them the verdict they want even if their case has nothing to do with that jurisdiction. 

FACT:  The goal of venue reform is to bog down cases in local courts.  The insurance companies are betting that injury plaintiffs don’t have the time or resources to wage a lengthy legal fight.  They rightly assume that victims are more likely to settle for less than they deserve to avoid years of potential litigation.  Small settlements translate to less justice for victims and more profits for corporate interests. 

Smaller court systems have faced budget cuts and a backlog of cases.  Some plaintiffs have sought relief in larger court systems.  Larger court systems have several advantages over smaller, local ones including:  1) expertise to hear these complex cases; and 2) they have the resources to handle litigation in a timely and efficient manner. 

If you are injured, don’t allow anyone to convince you that you are just being greedy.  Allow Attorney Douglas V. Stoehr or Attorney Aaron Ling to evaluate the facts and circumstances surrounding your case to determine if a valid claim exists.  We will provide an honest and thorough evaluation of your claim.  Call us at (814) 946-4100.

PENNSYLVANIA DOG LAW

Every year nearly 5 million people are bitten by dogs, and close to half of those victims are children.  1 in 5 people that are victims of dog bites require medical attention, which equates to about 900,000 Americans that received medical attention for dog bites in the past year. 

In 2012, dog bites accounted for approximately one third of settlements of all homeowner’s insurance liability claims.  Pennsylvania ranked fifth in states with the most dog bite insurance claims. 

Pennsylvania law does not impose absolute liability on an owner for dog attacks, not even in respect to a dog having vicious tendencies of which the owner is aware.  The plaintiff will need to prove negligence in order for the defendant to be found accountable for any injuries sustained because of a dog bite.  In order to prove a dog bite case, historically the claimant had to prove that the dog had bitten at least once in the past.  However, the law in Pennsylvania now is the following:  If a dog has any vicious propensities, regardless of whether it has bitten in the past, the dog’s actual bite upon you can serve as the standard for determining whether the owner was negligent.

Liability for a dog attack may even fall to a landlord.  A landlord may be held liable for injuries by animals owned and maintained by a tenant when the landlord has knowledge of the presence of the dangerous animal and where he or she has the right to control or remove the animal by retaking possession of the premises. 

            Your claim for damages based on your injuries or disfigurement will be based on a theory of negligence, and will be very complex.  You need an attorney that has experience in handling the difficulties of these types of claims.   We will review the facts and analyze the law to provide you with a thorough evaluation of your claims. 

If you or a loved one suffered an injury or disfigurement from a dog bite, please do not hesitate to contact the law office of Attorney Douglas V. Stoehr.  Attorney Doug Stoehr and Attorney Aaron Ling have experience in handling dog bite cases, and will thoroughly evaluate your claim.   Call us today at (814) 946-4100 for a free initial consultation.  

TORT REFORM FACT VS. FICTION PART 1

Fiction:  People are filing frivolous lawsuits that clog our justice system and take advantage of the courts.   

Fact:      The Rand Institute for Civil Justice has found that only 10 percent of injured people seek compensation and only 2 percent of them file lawsuits.  Also, since 1991, tort cases reflected only six percent of all cases filed.   Big business, corporations and insurance companies have framed several legitimate lawsuits as frivolous by selectively discussing facts or falsely reporting them entirely. (Please see our blog concerning the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case).  Additional interesting facts are:

                1.  Personal injury lawsuits have decreased by 21 percent. 

                2.  There has been a 52 percent decrease in personal injury jury trials from 1992 to 2005.  

Fiction:  Our tort system threatens business owners and job creators with frivolous lawsuits that will drive them out of our state. 

Fact:      Corporations and small business have repeatedly admitted that fear of litigation is not a high motivator for them.  The Economic Policy Institute has found that “there is no historical correlation between the inflated estimates of the costs of the tort system and corporate profits, product quality, productivity, or research and development spending.”  In 2008, a small business lobbying group, surveyed its members asking them to rate their problems and priorities.   Out of 75 issues surveyed, “Cost and Frequency of Lawsuits/Threatened Lawsuits ranked 65^th.  To give this some perspective, the 64^th issue that concerned businesses and corporations was solid and hazardous waste disposal. 

Fiction:  Medical malpractice lawsuits are driving up healthcare costs for everyone.

 

Fact:      Medical negligence compensation accounts for only 0.3 percent of national healthcare costs.  According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the total amount spent defending medical malpractice claims and compensating victims is $7.1 billion annually – just 0.3 percent of America’s $2.2 trillion in overall healthcare spending. 

Please stay tuned for part 2. 

If you are injured, don’t be bullied into thinking that you shouldn’t file a lawsuit.  Allow Attorney Douglas V. Stoehr or Attorney Aaron Ling to evaluate the facts and circumstances surrounding your case to determine if a valid claim exists.  Call us at (814) 946-4100.  

ADVICE TO PROPERLY WINTERIZE YOUR VEHICLE AND REDUCE RISK AND LIABILITY

                

           It’s that time of year again when we should start thinking about winterizing our vehicles.  Attorney Douglas V. Stoehr would like to offer a few tips that will help with this process.   

1. Check your tires - You should always check to make sure your tires are fully inflated to manufacturer’s specifications.   Usually this information is on the inside the driver’s side door. 
2. Check your brakes - A mechanic should be able to do an evaluation of the brake pads and braking system to ensure that they are working properly
3. Check your fluid levels - You should always check your oil, windshield washer fluid, and transmission fluid.  However, you should also be aware of your coolant levels.
4. Check your battery - A battery that is not working properly may result in you being stranded this winter.
5. Check your windshield wipers - If your windshield wipers are not properly clearing the windshield you may have an obstructed view of what’s ahead.
6. Put together an emergency kit containing a cell phone, a heavy blanket, gloves, salt/sand, a flashlight, water and non-perishable food.

Now that you have properly winterized your vehicle we would like to offer some advice to prevent an accident from occurring.   You should always decrease your speed and leave at least three times more space than usual between you and the car in front of you.  Remember to brake gently to avoid skidding, and to use low gears to keep traction on hills.  Remember to keep your lights and windshield clean to increase visibility.  Be particularly careful on bridges and overpasses, which will freeze first.  You should never pass snow plows because it’s likely that the road in front of the trucks is much worse than the road behind them.  Of course, the best tip is, if you don’t have to travel in winter weather…DON’T! 

However, despite our best efforts sometimes an accident is unavoidable.  If an accident does occur it’s important to know that Pennsylvania is a comparative negligence state.  Comparative negligence simply means that if your negligence contributed to the accident your damages will then be reduced by the amount of your negligence.  So please take every precaution to decrease the chances of contributing to an accident, and properly prepare your vehicle and yourself for the conditions ahead. 

Some preventative maintenance and exercising a little caution can go a long way in preventing an accident from occurring in the first place, and protecting you from liability.  However, if you are injured in a vehicle accident this winter please allow either Attorney Douglas V. Stoehr or Attorney Aaron M. Ling to review your claim

. 

DANGEROUS TIME OF YEAR FOR DRIVERS AND DEER

                State Farm has released its annual deer-related collision report, and Pennsylvania is again listed as the fifth most likely state for a deer collision.  Pennsylvania drivers have a 1 in 77 chance of hitting a deer this year.  Even though the odds seem good, State Farm has reported that the odds of colliding with a deer are actually down by 4.3 percent.  The reason for the decline is simple.  There are more registered drivers on the road. 

State Farm compiled these numbers by look at the total number of deer collisions between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013, and found that 1.22 million deer-related collisions occurred during that period, which they say is down by 3.5 percent compared to the previous year.  State Farm also reports that November is the most likely month for an incident to occur, followed by October and December. 

State Farm has reported that the “Top 5 Most Likely States for Deer Collisions” are as follows:  1) West Virginia; 2) Montana; 3) Iowa; 4) South Dakota; and 5) Pennsylvania.   State Farm has also provided tips for deer safety:

1.       Be aware of posted deer crossing signs, which are placed in active deer crossing areas.

2.       Deer are most active from 6-9 p.m.

3.       Use high beams headlamps as much as possible to watch for deer at night.

4.       Do not be a distracted driver.  Using cell phones and eating while driving may cause a driver to miss seeing a deer until it is too late.

5.       Deer typically travel in groups, so if you see one it’s likely there are more

At the law firm of Attorney Douglas V. Stoehr we are highly experienced in handling vehicle accidents.  If you, or a member of your family have been injured in a vehicle accident please contact either Attorney Douglas V. Stoehr or Attorney Aaron M. Ling, to evaluate your claim.  

20 Years Later: Get the Facts Straight about the McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case!

             

            This case may be one of the most sensational and high profile tort cases in recent memory, and the media incorrectly reported nearly all of the facts.  This case was one that proponents of tort reform used as a rallying cry to attempt to limit jury verdicts in what they thought were frivolous cases.  Tort reformers will typically attach themselves to a case that garners national attention, and spin the facts to make the jury verdicts seem ridiculous and nonsensical.  It was reported that she was awarded 2.9 million dollars, but the actual amount was reduced to a much smaller amount.

 

The facts of this case prove that nothing was frivolous about her claim.  Stella Liebeck, was 79-years-old when she spilled a cup of coffee in her lap while sitting in a parked car at a McDonald’s parking lot in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  The coffee that was spilled in her lap that day was served to her at a temperature of 180 to 190 degrees, which is about 30 degrees hotter than most home brewing machines.  The coffee caused her to suffer burns over 16% of her body, and 6% of those burns were third degree burns.  She was in the hospital for one week and amassed medical bills in excess of $10,000.00.  She attempted to settle with McDonald’s, but was only offered $800.00 to settle her claim. 

A seven day trial ensued, which included testimony from burn experts that liquids served at between 180 to 190 degrees could cause third degree burns within 15 seconds of contact.  To drive home the severity of the burns, the plaintiff’s attorney produced pictures of the burn area, which are quite graphic.  McDonald’s was well aware that their hot beverages were being served at dangerous temperatures.  Between 1983 and 1992 nearly 700 people had been burned by hot coffee at McDonald’s.  McDonald’s believed that because these burns occurred in only 1 out of 24 million cups sold, it was statistically insignificant.  The jurors felt differently when they awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $200,000.00.  The jury was asked whether McDonald’s should be punished: evidence showed that McDonald’s ignored hundreds of other burn claims, and chose to keep brewing the hot coffee.  Internal memos indicated that McDonald’s chose profits over safety.  Jurors awarded punitive damages against McDonald’s in the amount of 2.7 million dollars, which was based on the revenue of two days of coffee sales.  Unfortunately she was only awarded 1/6 of what the jury felt she was entitled to.  The judge in the case drastically reduced the total award from 2.9 million dollars to $650,000.00.   

McDonald’s now serves coffee at between 170 and 180 degrees, which is 10-20 degrees cooler than they previously served it.  Stella Liebeck, passed away in 2004 at the age of 91, but she is still a part of our popular culture and this case is still one of the most misunderstood cases ever reported.  To hear Stella’s story in her own words click the link below[1].  If there is one thing to take away from this case, it is that we shouldn’t be so quick to jump to the conclusion that an injury claim is frivolous.  An individual suffered very serious injuries in this case, and was made the subject of jokes and is still being ridiculed today nearly 10 years after she passed away.  She did nothing to deserve the media attention that she received as a result of this lawsuit.  She simply opened a cup of coffee that was served to her at a dangerous temperature, and she suffered damages as a result. 

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/booming/not-just-a-hot-cup-anymore.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

TEXTING + DRIVING = SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES

                In Cambria County last Wednesday a driver waived his preliminary hearing on charges that he was responsible for the deaths of two people.  The driver was charged with among other things, texting while driving.  While the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to carry, what is interesting is that this is the first time texting while driving charges have been filed in Cambria County since the law prohibiting texting while driving had been enacted nearly 2 years ago.   This tragedy occurred close to home in Cambria County, but may have easily occurred in Blair, Centre or Huntingdon County. 

                Cases like this have serious consequence not only criminally, but also civilly.  A Victim’s family may have a claim for serious personal injuries.  At the Law Firm of Douglas V. Stoehr we have experience in handling injury claims caused by the negligence of drivers that are texting while driving.  If you have been the victim of an auto accident related to a distracted driver please give either Attorney Doug Stoehr or Attorney Aaron Ling a call to evaluate your case today. 

                Remember that responding to that text message can wait.  No message it worth your life, or the life another individual.  

HALLOWEEN AND PREMISES LIABILITY

                If you are expecting to welcome trick or treaters onto your property this Halloween there are a couple things that you should be aware of.   First, if you are a homeowner, you have a responsibility to keep your property safe for anyone entering your property.  These people are owed a duty to be protected from certain dangerous conditions that you either caused or created, know about, or should have known about.  These types of cases are known as premises liability cases, or more commonly, “slip and fall” cases.  Second, you could be responsible for injuries if it happens on your property, and you breached the duty owed to the people entering your property.  At the law firm of Douglas V. Stoehr, we have experience in handling premises liability or “slip and fall” cases, but we would prefer that no one gets injured this Halloween.  We can provide a few tips for you to keep in mind while decorating, and getting ready to hand out candy:  

·         Make sure that your walkway, sidewalk and/or steps are well-lit and visible from the street to your front door.

·         Make sure that any dangerous conditions on walkways, sidewalks and steps are repaired or marked clearly to let people know of the dangerous conditions

·         Remove anything that may cause an individual to trip or fall while on your property, i.e., decorations and extension cords. 

If you or a family member is a victim of a premises liability or “slip and fall” case, please call either Attorney Doug Stoehr or Attorney Aaron Ling to discuss your potential claim.   As always, remember to have fun and be safe out there this Halloween.