The Harper Law Blog
The Harper Law Blog offers news, announcements, thoughts and articles on life, law and our practice areas of emphasis.
Availability of First Party Coverage, namely Personal Injury Proteciton after a collision
Posted Saturday, June 05, 2010 by Ed Harper.
Fist Party insurance is insurance purchased by the injured person or provided by the government or employer which provides insurance coverage that extends to the injured person because of his or her status at the time of the injury. The following is a list for possible available First Party Insurance Coverage:
A. Personal Injury Protection “PIP”
B. Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist “UIM”
C. Medical Insurance
D. Disability Insurance
E. Life Insurance
F. Labor and Industries/Workers Compensation
G. Medicare/Medicaid
I. Social Security Disability
For automobile Insurance, here in the State of Washington PIP and UIM coverages are mandatory coverages. PIP provides no-fault coverage for medical and hospital expenses, funeral expenses, income continuation, and loss of services incurred by an insured due to bodily injuries suffered in an automobile accident. RCW 4.22.085(1). A written waiver refusing PIP coverage can be signed and agreed to. Because the coverage is mandatory, and insurance must provide a signed waiver establishing you (insured) knowingly consented to less than the state required coverage. Without a signed rejection, an insured is entitled to the coverage. RCW 48.22.095. A similar rule exists for UIM coverage as well.
In regards to Personal Injury Protection, currently the minimum limits for PIP are $10,000 in medical benefits, incurred within three years of the date of the accident, and 85% of lost wages or $200 per week, whichever is less, beginning 14 days after the disability arises and continuing for 50 weeks thereafter, plus $2,000 for funeral expenses and $5,000 for loss of services, up to a maximum of $40 per day and $200 per week. RCW 48.22.095.
Extended coverage for PIP is offered in Washington, and one should ask their insurance agent for an explanation of the extended coverage and make an informed decision whether extended coverage would suit the insured. One problem with online enrollment for insurance is the lack of a face to face meeting with an insurance agent. In the past, an agent would describe the positives and negatives of a variety of insurance coverages, and the respective costs of these coverages. However, due to the recent proliferation of online insurance, the consumer has lost out on the ability gather as much information. PIP provides a great source of funds available to compensate one after an injury. Problems can be avoided by choosing a higher limit of PIP and/or UIM coverage.
Who is covered? An insured means:
a. The named insured or person who is a resident of the named insured’s household and is either related to the named insured by blood, marriage, or adoption, or is the named insured’s ward, foster child or stepchild; or
b. A person who sustains bodily injury caused by the collision while: (i) occupying or using the insured automobile with the permission of the named insured; or (ii) a pedestrian accidentally struck by the insured automobile.
Pedestrian under the PIP statute is defined as “a natural person not occupying a motor vehicle…” RCW 48.22.055(11)
The author as an EAGLE member of the Washington Assoc. of Justice (WSAJ) has access to a great number of materials on Automobile Accident Litigation. Many of these ideas and suggestions come from WSAJ resources. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your automobile insurance coverage, contact Harper Law at 425 284 3333 or e mail info@edharperlaw.com.
Degenerative changes and recovering non-econonomic damages
Posted Wednesday, May 12, 2010 by Ed Harper.
I’d like to address the issue of degenerative changes to a person’s spine. While the MRI may establish degenerative changes, the testimony and evidence will often conclusively show that the injured person was not having any symptoms from this condition prior to the crash. The medical literature is replete with studies that show degenerative changes do not always equate with painful symptoms. Yet, following a crash, a client can develop painful symptoms, 100% of which ARE attributable to the collision.
What occurs is a battle over proximate cause ~ that is, the relationship or connection to the injury and the injury-inducing event. The defense will argue the issue as a pre-existing condition, while the injured person and their attorney will argue for a distinctly different condition due to the onset of symptoms.
Further, as for general damages, it seems the offers for compensation fail to address many areas of damage. The jury instruction for non-economic damage lists the following items for a jury to consider:
1) pain and suffering (past and future);
2) mental distress (past and future);
3) inconvenience;
4)disability –the impairment to lead a normal life (partial or total) (permanent or partial); and
5) loss of a specific athletic skill
6) loss of enjoyment of life.
All of these areas can be affected in the life of the injured person. Only by participating in some form (or forms) of curative care, such as physical therapy or home exercises, are individuals able to return to feeling somewhat normal. However, there is a substantial loss that has occurred in the meantime. For example, losing out on a summer of fun and enjoyment can be very detrimental to one’s quality of life.
If you have any questions for personal injuries arising anywhere in the USA, call Harper Law, PLLC at 425 284 3333. We have helped injured persons recover for a variety of injuries and we will provide a free consultation for bodily injury claims.
Insurance Medical Examination
Posted Monday, May 10, 2010 by Ed Harper.
Are you presently representing yourself in a bodily injury claim? Have you been told by a third-party (the “at-fault “insurance company) adjuster that you must submit to a medical examination prior to payment of your claim? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, you are at risk for losing out on your ability to properly present a claim for personal injury.
Adjusters are quite savvy and have a knack for making it seem as though they are concerned about you and your claim. Third-party adjusters are well-trained in protecting the interests of the company rather than yours. There is no fiduciary or financial duty owed to a claimant, and in fact, it is assumed the claimant knows there is an adversarial relationship. Therefore, the Latin phrase – “caveat emptor” – should be considered in dealing with anadjuster. Caveat emptor – or “Buyer Beware” – is used anytime one enters into a contract, and also when one is dealing with an adversarial insurance company.
Adjusters will often take advantage of un-represented individuals/claimants and persuade them to allow an examination to take place by a health care provider chosen by the insurance company. The exam will be labeled an “independent medical examination” (IME), but it is far from “independent.”
This exam is otherwise classically known as a “defense medical examination” (DME) because what typically occurs in these exams is that an injured claimant is found without any ongoing need for any further medical care. Maximum medical improvement (MMI) is determined by this defense examiner. However, this one-sided view from an insurance funded exam is typically for purposes of denying, delaying, and defending the claim.
Unfettered access to one’s medical records will occur first, and will be claimed as a necessity before the selected health care provider can perform the examination. So what has occurred is a two-fold danger. First, the insurer obtains complete access to your medical records, and second, a doctor of their choosing is selected to minimize the validity of your claim. Third-party adjusters know this a tremendous advantage for them with respect to their evaluation of a claim, and a claim should not be minimized in this manner.
Injured persons should seek legal assistance as soon as practical to avoid any (or further) damage to their claim. We at Harper Law are here to help. We will answer your legal questions quickly and easily. The initial consultation is free, and should you elect to utilize our services, there are no attorney fees until the conclusion of the case.
Cervicogenic Headaches
Posted Tuesday, May 04, 2010 by Ed Harper.
Many of my clients suffer from headaches following a rear-end crash. They often ask their physicians or health care providers, “Why am I getting a headache after a collision?” or “I’ve never had headaches before the crash, why now?”
Often neck injuries can be the source of a debilitating headache. If you have been told your neck injury is the source of your headaches, you likely have a “cervicogenic” headache. Cervico means – pertaining to the neck. Genic means – of or is related to or cause of.
The top 2 or 3 levels of the cervical spine to the base of the skull primarily carry out 50% of the movement of the head/skull. Thus, these levels must withstand continuous wear and tear, and also bear the primary load of the weight of the head.
At a recent seminar, noted medical doctor from the UW Headache Clinic mentioned the following: The primary pain sources from the neck at the first three spinal nerves:
C1 spinal nerve (suboccipital nerve) innervates the atlanto-occipital joint.
C2 spinal nerve runs close to the atlantoaxial (C1-2) zygapophyseal joint and innervates the atlantoaxial and C2-3 zygapophyseal joints.
Dorsal Ramus of C3 innervates the C2-3 zygapophyseal joint. This joint and nerve appear most vulnerable to “whiplash”, per Dr. Murinova, Neurologist.
There are many factors to consider in addressing whether the headaches are a direct result of a motor vehicle crash. However, as mentioned above, the genesis of a headache may indeed be caused by the proverbial “pain in the neck “.
If you have any questions regarding your bodily injuries following a collision or fall, contact Harper Law. 425 284 3333
Young Lawyer Gets 36.1 Million Dollar Verdict
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2010 by Sue Fowler, PI Paralegal.
The article that follows is a quick read ~ and a great example of why personal injury trial lawyers catch a bad “rap”. All that the media ever reports is the verdict! They don’t explain the precipitating facts ~ that the insurance company refused to offer a penny for years, leaving the injured person and his family to suffer in every way, including financially, simply because of their greed. THIS is why juries occasionally come back with huge verdicts. It’s because they WANT to punish the insurance companies for their greed. If the insurance companies would be remotely reasonable, paying injured people what they should from the massive premiums they take from all of us, cases wouldn’t even need to go to trial. Going (and even the preparation for going) to trial is a nasty, super expensive, horribly stressful situation – not something anyone, let alone an injured person, ever wants to endure. But the insurance companies typically leave no choice.
_____________________________________________________________
“Truth and love turned out to be a powerful 1-2 combination for trial attorney Nick Rowley. At the age of 32, Rowley has tried 59 cases and seen hundreds of settlements. In his most recent case, tried with colleagues Alejandro Blanco and Daniel Rodriguez, truth and love meant a $31.5 million verdict for a single plaintiff. Rocio Landeros, age 16, suffered a brain injury with resulting left sided hemi paresis (weakness and foot drop). The defendant driver was a farm worker who was drunk and admitted liability, but the insurer refused to pay out. For 25 months the insurer would not offer a penny. After years of battling, the insurer offered to settle the case for policy limits, but Rowley, Blanco & Rodriguez had other ideas. They turned the Insurer Fireman’s Fund down, saying “the settle-for-policy-limits-train left the station- we promised we would take you to trial.” They marched into a month-long trial knowing that the insurer risked a potential bad faith suit if the plaintiffs won in excess of the $10 million policy limit. The jury returned a more than triple verdict of $36.1 million for the plaintiffs.”
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | Older Entries ››
We Are Here to Help
Although our office does not handle all types of cases, we hope you will contact us regarding any legal issues you may encounter. We will answer your questions, or refer you to another quality and trustworthy attorney if we are unable to assist you.
