The Loss of a Parent

A child having to face the loss of a parent is hard enough, but it’s also important to consider the long-term implications for your family. Putting a value on the parent may seem impossible, but unfortunately it’s something that an insurance settlement will try to do following a fatal car accident. They will look at a variety of factors, from the parent’s financial contribution to the family and the potential value of lost future wages, to the emotional and social role the parent played in the family.

The Impossible Task: Putting a Value on a Parent’s Life

Your job will be to sit down with your attorney and discuss the late parent’s role in the family. Everyone’s lives will be forever changed from here on out, and that needs to be taken into account. For instance, in a situation where a parent was the family’s sole breadwinner, the other parent would need to replace that income. If there is no other parent in the picture, the children would need to be assigned a guardian, hopefully within the family. On the other hand, if the late parent was the primary caregiver, the surviving parent will need to be able to replace that care.

Even if the late parent was simply a contributor to a two-income family, the loss of that parent’s income could prove devastating, so the family still may be entitled to compensation.

When the Beneficiary Is a Minor

In situations where the beneficiary of a settlement is underage, everything can change. Arizona law requires any settlements of over $10,000 that will be paid to a minor to be approved first by the court. The court can decline the settlement if the judge determines the child’s best interests aren’t being met. If the court approves the settlement, it can require a conservatorship to be established to protect the child’s interests. If you are pursuing a claim on behalf of minor children, it’s especially important to find an experienced accident attorney to represent their interests and navigate the legal requirements of any compensation paid out to them.

Changing Views

Insurance payouts that reflect the economic value of a late parents are just one way to compensate car accident victims’ families. In a world where both parents’ income and caregiving are increasingly necessary, some laws are changing to reflect the weight of this loss. For instance, on May 25, 2022, Tennessee signed into law a bill that would require anyone convicted of vehicular homicide while driving drunk to pay child maintenance if the victim had a minor child. The new law reflects changing attitudes toward the value of parents, and soon we may find laws like these becoming more common everywhere.

Finding Legal Representation

Dealing with the death of a loved one is hard enough, but when losing a parent in a car accident means hardship for the surviving family, it can be especially difficult. Fortunately, if you’ve lost a loved one in a car accident, you may be due compensation that will at the very least make life a little easier for the entire family as you grieve. For a compassionate consultation of your case, contact the Simon Law Group today.

Attend a Quality Motorcycle Safety Program

In Arizona, you have to have a special motorcycle endorsement in order to drive a motorcycle, and in order to get that license, you need to take a motorcycle safety program. Other drivers can be careless or might not always notice motorcycles on the road, inadvertently putting you in danger. There are many fast track programs available to help you get your motorcycle endorsement sooner, but take the time to attend a quality program that will teach you valuable skills for keeping yourself safe on the road.

Wear a Helmet

In Arizona only minors are required to wear a helmet, whether they are driving the motorcycle or just riding along, but every adult should consider wearing one. In a motorcycle accident you will likely be thrown, possibly at high speeds, and a helmet will protect your head from potentially life-changing (or worse) injuries.

Shield Yourself From Harm

Arizona laws require a motorcycle operator to wear eye protection if there is no windshield on their bike. This could be goggles or protective glasses, or it could be a helmet with a transparent face shield. If you think about how often flying rocks take chips out of car windshields, it’s easy to see why this precaution is reasonable and necessary. No one wants to be blinded by a flying rock at highway speeds. Perhaps even more importantly, it could be a catalyst for an even more serious accident involving other drivers.

Pay Attention to Lane Laws

Arizona has very specific rules regarding how motorcycles can travel in lanes. For instance, lane sharing is allowed, but only two motorcycles may ride next to one another in a lane. Even though motorcycles aren’t as wide as cars, it’s important to leave room around each bike so that they don’t inadvertently collide with one another. Also, note that Arizona does  allow limite lane splitting when traffic is stopped.where a motorcycle travels down the lines between the lanes to pass cars in both lanes.

Carry the Right Amount of Insurance Coverage

To drive a motorcycle on Arizona roads, you are required to carry liability insurance with a minimum of $25,000 per person or $50,000 per accident for bodily injury, and $15,000 for property damage. However, it’s important to note that the state requirements may not be enough in the event of a serious accident. Even if it’s not your fault, the driver at fault may not carry enough insurance coverage either. To ensure you’re fully protected, all motorcyclists should consider carrying uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage  on their motorcycle or, if you have a vehicle it may be more cost efficient to carry these coverages on your vehicle which is portable to protect you on your motorcycle.

Sometimes, despite all of your best efforts, the worst happens. If you or a loved one have been in a motorcycle accident, you should know that the clock is already ticking. Arizona only gives you two years from the date of the accident (or the date of the death, if the accident resulted in your loved one passing away) to take your case to court, so it’s vital not to waste time. In certain circumstances if a government agency is at fault there is a 180 day notice requirement and one year limitation.  Call Simon Law Group today for a free consultation with a lawyer who rides and understands the unique circumstances of motorcycling.

Here are some things to know as you decide if you have a case for premises liability.

1. Two Basic Liability Rules.

     When determining who is responsible for an accident, there are two foundational rules.

     Rule One: The Owner Must Keep the Property Safe

     The owner owes visitors a safe setting, confirming secure design, construction, condition, and maintenance      of the property.

     Rule Two: The Visitor Must Use the Property Responsibly

Visitors must act normally when using the property. Any unexpected, unauthorized, or dangerously careless behavior exempts the owner from being held responsible for any injuries.

2. Both the Owner and the Occupier Could Be Liable.

Depending on the accident and what parts of the property were involved, either the owner or the occupier could be held responsible for your injury.

• Commercial Property: Property leases usually include details regarding who is liable for such incidents. Notify the business and their insurance will handle the claim or decide to pass it to the building owner’s insurance company.

• Rented Home: The owner is responsible for immovable fixtures and surrounding hallways, stairs, and entrances. The tenant is responsible for movable things inside the apartment.

To be safe, file a notice of claim against both the owner and the occupier.

3. Establish Negligence to Establish Liability

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of a premises liability case is the fact that simply confirming responsibility does not lead to to liability. You, as the claimant, must establish that the business or residence was negligent regarding maintenance, design, or construction of the property, that they knew or should have known about the condition and yet failed to act. You must be able to show that:

• The cause of the accident was a known issue
• The problem could have been avoided with reasonable action from the landowner
• You could not have anticipated the issue and prevented the accident

4. Validating Your Presence

Different states determine a landowner’s duty of care depending on the status of the visitor. According to Arizona:

• Invitee: Visitors with express permission to be on the property are owed the highest duty of care, and businesses are required to warn them of dangerous conditions, and repair known issues.
• Licensee: Social guests or salespeople are some of the people who visit a property for non-commercial reasons, and are owed warning of hazards and reasonable repair of dangerous situations.
• Trespassers: Generally, property owners are not held liable for injuries occurring to people who were on the property without permission.

5. Complex Cases Need Aggressive Representation.

Because of the complexity of cases involving premises liability, it is crucial that you work with a lawyer who can effectively tackle each aspect, and pay close attention to many different factors. Your attorney should be experienced, knowing what to look for, what to focus on, and how to give each facet of the case with the right level of attention.

Seek expert help as you explore your premises liability options, and let the skilled offices of Simon Law Group assist you in building a strong case for premises liability that will deliver the justice you deserve.

If you have been in an accident, take a deep breath, and remember these things.

1. Check Your Health.

First and foremost, determine if you are hurt. If you require medical attention, seek it immediately. The shock of an accident often masks symptoms of neck or back injury that will prove serious later on, so don’t risk making it worse by delaying medical help.

2. Don’t Admit Fault.

Even if you think you may have been partially at fault for the accident, never say that out loud to any of the other drivers. Your part may not have mattered had it not been for the harm contributed by other drivers. Until the accident can be evaluated, don’t undermine their actions by admitting to any wrongdoing at the scene.

3. Call the Police.

Call the police right away, if a bystander hasn’t already. When the police arrive, confirm that they will be writing an accident report, which can serve as a clear, unbiased description of the event, before memories fade or facts become blurred.

4. Look For Witnesses.

Did anyone see the accident happen? Get their names, addresses, and contact numbers. If you follow up with an accident injury claim, you want to have all perspectives of the accident that you can.

5. Leave the Vehicles.

Wait until the police arrive to move any cars from the position of the accident, unless the vehicles are impeding traffic or creating dangerous situation. Try to preserve the scene of the accident as much as possible.

6. Exchange Information.

Ask for the other drivers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, and insurance information. Make sure the names match on the license and insurance policy. Take pictures of the license plate numbers if you can, and write down the numbers.

7. Call Your Insurance.

No matter who is at fault, your insurance company is responsible for determining the facts of the accident and for making sure that the responsible insurance company covers the cost of your vehicle and necessary medical expenses. No recorded statements until you speak with an attorney.

8. Take Pictures.

If it is safe to do so, take photos of the scene of the accident, including injuries, vehicle damage, skid marks, road damage, and any other relevant images. The more evidence the better.

9. Stay Quiet on Social Media

Change all of your social media sites to ‘private’ and don’t accept new friends while the dispute is being decided. It is best to stop using these sites altogether during this period, as any online postings can be used as evidence against you in the proceedings.

10. Contact a Qualified Attorney.

When you decide to pursue a claim against another driver involved in an accident with you, meet with a skilled lawyer as soon as possible. Discuss the details of your case and find out what your chances may be, before seeking justice for your injuries and damages.

Simon Law Group specializes in accident injury cases, with more than 30 years of experience helping accident victims receive compensation for the traumatic event and subsequent pain and suffering, financial and physical. Contact us today for your free consultation.

As a consequence of her Dec. 30 ruling, the defendants in Crawford v. American Legion Ambulance Association, 08-cv-2338, will not have to pay more than $600 per hour when they depose the plaintiff’s medical expert, leaving the plaintiff to pick up the difference unless the expert agrees to lower his rate.

The expert, John Ratliff, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at Thomas Jefferson University Medical College in Philadelphia, charges $5,000 for the first hour of deposition and $2,000 for every hour thereafter.

His court appearances also come at a high price: $12,000 per day and rising to $15,000 when he has to go out of state, as in this case.

Plaintiff Vernon Crawford claims he was rear-ended by an ambulance in 2007, resulting in myelopathy and loss of spinal function. He was treated by Ratliff, consulted with him about the possibility of surgery and has designated him as a medical expert.

Lee Eckell, of Post & Schell in Princeton, N.J., who represents the defendants, American Legion Ambulance Association and ambulance driver Robyn Crispin, wants to depose Ratliff.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party seeking discovery is the one who has to pay for the deposition. But Rule 26(b)(4)(C) requires discovery seekers to pay only a "reasonable fee for time spent."

Crawford’s attorney, David Heim, of Bochetto & Lentz in Philadelphia, moved on Aug. 21, asking for a ruling that Ratliff’s charges were reasonable in light of his qualifications and highly specialized expertise.

Heim’s certification described Ratliff as a "well respected author, lecturer and researcher" with 15 peer-reviewed publications to his credit and "subspecialty expertise in peripheral nerve disorders, as well as neurosurgical evaluation and treatment of nerve compression syndromes and peripheral nerve trauma, including complex reconstructive peripheral nerve surgery."

The fees to be paid Ratliff were from a schedule provided by Thomas Jefferson University’s Department of Neurosurgery, which said those rates had been paid in other cases, without reduction, stated Heim.

He also related his efforts to obtain other expert fee schedules for comparison by calling around to other area hospitals.

The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University Hospital both informed him their neurosurgeons do not do expert witness work, while two other places, Hanehmann University Hospital and the Washington Brain and Spine Institute, said they would check but never got back to him, he wrote.

Cooper University Hospital, however, provided an expert fee schedule for David Clements, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who does spinal surgery. Clements charges $8,500 for in-court testimony and up to $4,500 for a deposition, rates Heim argued are commensurate with Ratliff’s.

Eckell countered with 3rd Circuit precedent that set reasonable expert fees at $200 to $500 per hour, though none of the cases involved a neurosurgeon.

He also highlighted the disparity between Ratliff’s fees and those for two other plaintiffs’ medical experts, one who charged $1,500 for the entire deposition and the other $500 per hour.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Williams acknowledged that neurosurgery is a highly specialized area of practice and, thus, "a reasonable fee for a neurosurgeon may be well above a reasonable fee for other types of experts." She also called it surprising that neither side had provided information about deposition fees charged by a neurosurgeon with credentials similar to Ratliff’s.

She called "immensely instructive" a case from the District of Colorado she found through own research, Grady v. Jefferson County, 249 F.R.D. 657 (2008), which held that a neurosurgeon’s published fee of $2,000 per hour for deposition testimony was grossly excessive. The expert, Richard Spiro, chief of spine surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, was willing to reduce his fee to $1,000 per hour for the case, a prisoner’s civil-rights suit alleging inadequate medical care, where the two Colorado surgeons acting as defense experts were charging $450 per hour. The Grady court found a reasonable hourly rate for Spiro was no more than $600 per hour.

Williams chose that same amount, noting Spiro practiced in the same state as Ratliff and had equally impressive credentials.

To avoid having to pay Ratliff’s hefty court appearance fee, Heim had also requested permission to videotape Ratliff’s trial testimony right after the deposition.

He argued that the contrast between the court appearance charge and the $2,000 per-hour cost of obtaining canned trial testimony right after deposition qualified as "exceptional circumstances" under Rule 32(a)(3)(E).

Williams denied the request, finding it would result in immense prejudice to the defendants. They would have to jump right into trial questioning without the chance to review the deposition transcript or refer to it and would have less time to prepare for cross-examination, she pointed out.

Heim says the fee set by the court is more than the $250 to $350 per hour courts typically allow for medical expert testimony and more than the defense was initially willing to pay. He hopes Ratliff will agree to accept the $600 rate, since his client will have to pay any overage.

Eckell declines comment.

New Jersey Law Journal
by Mary Pat Gallagher
January 06, 2010
Source: Law.com

In the recent New York case of Andrikopoulos v. Gach, the plaintiff was a twenty-four year old single woman who suffered burns to her face and body when she was a young girl. The resulting scarring required more than fifty surgeries. She was employed in her family’s diner where a radio disc jockey, Bolts, saw her. Bolts subsequently discussed Andrikopoulos with his radio disk jockey co-host Gach on their radio show, identifying the location of the diner. He also stated that he saw a woman working there who had burns on her face.

The two disc jockeys made inflammatory remarks about the waitress’s appearance, further commenting on how great it was for the restaurant to give someone who looks like that a job. People who knew the Plaintiff recognized that it was Andrikopoulos who the Defendant disc jockeys were ridiculing and advised her of the derogatory comments made by the disc jockeys.

Subsequently, the disc jockeys derogatory comments were uploaded onto the radio station’s website as a podcast which was later removed after numerous complaints.

Following the show Andrikopoulos suffered severe emotional distress making it extremely difficult for her to go out in public. She then sued the disc jockeys and the company that owned the radio station claiming the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. The Defendants claim that their statements were protected by the first amendment and that any damages she suffered were due to choosing to listen to the broadcast months later. The case was ultimately settled for $ 1,000,000.00.

Barnes, 71, was driving her car when a van broadsided her after allegedly running a red light. Barnes suffered numerous injuries, including massive internal injuries, requiring a splenectomy; bleeding on the brain; a punctured heart; and multiple pelvic fractures. As a result of the injuries, Barnes had to be placed in a medically induced coma for several days. Her past medical costs were about $756,700. A retiree, Barnes did not claim lost income.

Barnes sued the driver and his employer under a theory of respondeat superior, alleging negligent operation of a vehicle. Plaintiff alleged the driver was distracted because he was using the global positioning system function on a cell phone while driving.

Defendants admitted liability at trial, and the parties settled for $4.1 million, which the employer’s insurance will cover.

If your case involved another driver who was inattentive for any reason, then click on “CONTACT US or call The Simon Law Group for a free initial consultation today!