Free Consultation
(314) 500-HURTEvery personal injury claim is unique, but hearing others' stories can help you understand what to expect. Burger Law offers a new collection of our previous clients' stories and how we were able to help.
It’s 27 days till the election. One of the strangest in memory. I love elections. For many years I have worked as a poll watcher or voter protector.
I'll be working in a polling place Nov. 3 to help answer questions and ensure voters get to exercise their franchise. Make sure you vote – if any friends need information on how or where to vote, call me at [wdac-phone].
Below, I discuss a settlement and a Continuing Legal Education class on mediation I will be presenting next month with USAM. But first, we should remember that we are really choosing the electors who will go choose our president on election day.
The popular vote does not choose the president. It’s a strange system thought up over 4 days by 11 men in 1787. Here's a little article I wrote on the electoral college, what it is and some of its history. Enjoy!
In my Dave Letterman style, here’s the top 10 things most people do not know about the Electoral College.
They decided a select group of appointed people would choose the president, called electors (reference to how popes were chosen?). Each state would get electors equal to the number of representatives and senators. Each state's legislature decides how it appoints electors. The framers thought this the least objectionable choice of President selection. If no candidate gets a majority of the elector votes the House of Representatives chooses the President.
Missouri’s Thomas hart Benton wrote in 1824 that they “lost power over their own vote” and were picked “for their devotion to a party.” Electors quickly became “party lackeys and intellectual nonentities,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in 1952. Electoral college waivers in popularity - depending if a party thinks they have an advantage using it or not.
After those states frequently switched between splitting votes and being winner take all in political maneuvering by political parties. (Massachusetts changed systems in every election between 1796 and 1820). Today 48 states are winner-take-all, with Maine and Nebraska having a district system. In the 1800 election, Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied electorally – and Burr was Jefferson’s running mate! It took the house 36 votes before Jefferson won.
Winners of the popular vote lost the electoral vote in 1876 and 1888, in addition to more recent Bush-Gore and Trump-Clinton elections. Perhaps the most famous picture of electoral college troubles is Harry Truman holding the newspaper announcing his opponents win.
A pledged elector is only considered a faithless elector by breaking their pledge; unpledged electors have no pledge to break. There has been a total of 165 instances of faithlessness as of 2016, 63 of which occurred in 1872 when Horace Greeley died after Election Day but before the Electoral College convened. Nearly all have voted for third party candidates or non-candidates, as opposed to switching their support to a major opposing candidate.
Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states. The last time we got close to getting rid of the electoral college was in 1969 when a bill passed the house with 30 states on board to ratify it. But a filibuster in the Senate killed the bill and it never was passed. The Compact bypasses Congress – but it has not taken effect yet. 15 states have entered the compact but it does not take effect, by its terms, unless enough states representing a majority of electoral votes enter the compact. If that happens, and states abide by it, the electoral college will be bypassed. They are 74 votes shy of the majority needed. Will the drama of this election push more states into the compact?
We often hear the election will come down to relatively few voters in a few states. Sometimes this makes voters think their vote doesn't matter.
Very psyched to be presenting at an upcoming CLE by United States Arbitration and Mediation Services on Advocacy Tips and Secrets via Zoom. Since the pandemic, I have done a bunch of Zoom mediations. I have developed effective strategies and ways of presenting during the mediations, which I will share.
We settled a case for the $100,000 policy limits only 3 months after signing a representation agreement with our client Brandon.
In April 2020, Brandon was in a terrible motorcycle accident. The young driver of the other vehicle was not paying attention while he was reaching for a drink when he crashed his vehicle into Brandon’s motorcycle. Brandon suffered severe injuries, including both wrists fractured, fractured vertebrae, internal injuries, broken shoulder, broken hip and road rash.
Thankfully, Brandon was wearing a helmet at the time of this incident. He was flown from the scene of the accident in St. James, Missouri to Mercy Creve Coeur. With Missouri’s helmet law changing – riders will be suffering much worse injuries or death.
Even though the defendant had an insurance policy limit of $100,000 – Brandon's medical bills were higher.
The benefit Brandon has from hiring Burger Law is that we are able to negotiate with his medical providers to assert liens in the case so we can use the Missouri Lien Statute to reduce his medical bills.
This way we are still able to get Brandon settlement proceeds for what he went through in this incident. The Missouri Lien Statute § 430.225.3 through 430.250, provides that medical lien holders can only get up to 50% of the net proceeds of a settlement and cannot collect any more. This lets us help clients walk away from bad crashes with no medical debt.
We are happy to represent Brandon and work to make sure that Brandon is able to get a recovery in his pocket from this incident and will not have to worry about paying for his medical bills on his own.
Voting in the 2020 election ends in two weeks. I would say it’s in two weeks, but 35 million Americans have already voted as of the time of this email. It is important for us to understand the rules protecting voters against intimidation or supersession.
Voting in America is flooded with examples of voter intimidation and voter suppression in the past. By 1940, voter suppression campaigns were so successful that only 3% of eligible African-Americans in the South were registered to vote.
In the last few weeks, we see news reports of limited polling places and long lines, which affects access. We all know that not all Americans vote, it seems to be declining and we complain about voter apathy.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled Texas could have one mail-in dropoff location per county, including counties with millions of people.
In 2016, Arizona had long (5 hours) voting lines – resulting in lawsuits and apologies from election officials. Predominantly Latino areas were disproportionately affected.
In Phoenix—which is a majority-minority city and the largest metropolitan area in the state—there was only one polling site per 108,000 residents- with some predominantly non-Latino white communities having a polling site for as few as 8,500 residents.
They had problems with armed people asking for green cards. In St. Louis, I have worked at polls with hours long lines in higher minority residential areas and my polling place in a whiter area is pretty short.
And just two weeks ago, our president criticized the voting process and legitimacy, with varying replies about accepting results. In the national debate urge supporters to go into the polls and ‘watch very closely’ while questioning the integrity of the 2020 election. Fears of voter intimidation follow this.
Under the law, voter intimidation is defined as the use of threats, coercion, or attempts to intimidate for the purpose of interfering with the right of another person to vote or to vote for the person of their choosing.
Voter intimidation is still a problem in the United States and may be a growing problem especially with the controversial presidential election that is coming up. Below are some examples that voters have reported as intimidation tactics:
Voter intimidation greatly exceeds voter fraud.
Over the years Congress has recognized that voter intimidation undermined the principles of democracy and in 1940 passed laws that criminalized voter intimidation. Voter intimidation is defined under 18 U.S.C. § 594 which states that:
“whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Other voter intimidation-related laws include:
Voter intimidation is a felony – persons found guilty of violating the federal voter intimidation law can be sentenced up to one year in prison and fines up to $1,000 fine.
Voter suppression, intimidation, misleading information and disorderly conduct is illegal under Missouri law too. For example, baseless challenges, intimidating voters, spreading false information or interfering with a voter or polling place may result in criminal or civil penalties. Any activity that threatens, harasses or intimidates voters should be reported to the authorities below.
Did you know that a voter’s identity or qualifications may be challenged by election personal or duly authorized challengers? (Not by anyone in the polling place). Missouri laws allow challengers credentialed by political parties to be present in the polling place and challenge a voter’s eligibility. RSMo. § 115.105.1 and § 115.429.2
Each party is allowed to designate a watcher only at locations where votes are counted, who are there to observe the counting of votes. RSMo. § 115.107.1
Further, under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.105.1 challengers:
All a challenger may do is raise a challenge to the voter’s eligibility with a poll worker. However, a challenge can only be made when the challenger reason to believe the election laws of the state have been or will be violated.
Voters should be aware of reports that some challengers may not be well-trained and are being encouraged to aggressively challenge and in some instances have challenged voter’s eligibility on non-legitimate legal grounds.
Examples of challengers acting in a non-legitimate ground can include mass challenges, challenges targeted to minority precincts or those based on information like foreclosure lists may violate the Constitution and Voting Rights Act.
Under no circumstance should an eligible voter be denied a regular ballot solely on the basis that his eligibility is challenged.
Only a select amount of people is allowed inside the polling place which include:
All other people are not allowed in polling places.
These people are only allowed to be in the polls as long as they are not interfering with the elections process. RSMo. § 115.409
All other people (other than election officials and voters) must be at least 25 feet from the entrance to the polling place. RSMo. § 115.637(18)
In Missouri, exit polling, surveying, electioneering, distributing election literature, posting signs regarding a candidate or an election issue are prohibited in the polling place or within 25 feet of the polling place.
Finally, it is illegal in Missouri for anyone at a polling place (inside or out) to breach the peace, engage in disorderly conduct or impede the election process. § 115.637
If any of these laws are broken the polling site should be reported immediately.
Missouri Law further prohibits anyone to induce, threaten, impede or prevent or attempt to impede or prevent someone from voting by abduction, duress or any fraudulent device. RSMo. § 115.635(1)(2)(3)
Missouri further prohibits employers to prevent employees from engaging in political activities, for anyone to interfere or attempt to interfere with voting in the polling place, or to engage in any disorderly conduct, breach of peace, violence or threats or violence that will impede or interfere with the election. RSMo. § 115.637
Voters should also be aware that misleading information that confuses voters and prevents them from voting is illegal under Missouri Law.
Any information that disseminates untrue information about the timing of the election, or erroneously tells voters that they cannot vote if they have back-due child support, owed back taxes, have an outstanding warrant, have unpaid tickets or have had their home foreclosed upon. In addition, it is illegal for anyone to attempt to coerce, intimidate or bribe any member or employee to vote or refrain from voting in a particular way. RSMo. § 130.028
Voter intimidation is a huge issue that most voters are not aware of but should be. Voters who experience voter intimidation should report all illegal challengers or watchers conduct, voter intimidations or deceptive practices to the following Agencies:
U.S. Department of Justice Voting Rights Hotline: 800-253-3931; TTY line 877-267- 8971; Advancement Project Voter Protection: 202-728-9557 Election Protection Hotlines: 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683) or 888 VE Y VOTA (888 839-8682).
Voting in the 2020 election is over but the counting is not. Will the Supreme Court decide this election? I am sending this email out on Wednesday, November 4th while mail-in ballots are being counted in numerous swing states.
I wrote before about the electoral college, its quirks and how it creates the current system where a few states end up being the most important determiners of who wins the Presidential Election.
President Trump said this morning that he thought that he had won the election and was going to go to the United States Supreme Court to stop counting mail-in votes.
So, below I thought I would talk a little bit about the law and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to determine the outcome of presidential elections. Other things in this email I discuss are a settlement, how to pay co-counsel fees, and another video of a happy client.
But first, I was able to work the polls yesterday and really enjoyed it. I was certified as a vote challenger – or as I prefer to call it voter protection representative by the Democratic party.
To get such credentials, I have to be approved and signed off on by the Republican and Democratic election board officers in St. Louis County. Then when I go to the polling location, the Republican and Democratic supervisors have to witness my signature and approve my presence.
When I arrived, I introduced myself and basically tried to facilitate voting. I made sure that we had handicap accessibility and curbside voting. I watched to make sure that everyone was moving smoothly through the lines.
I was able to verify voters were registered on the Secretary of State's website, which worked really well. People who had questions were able to call the Board of Election – and were able to get through quickly and have their questions answered.
The election judges and supervisors at my polling location were really good. They were dedicated and worked well as a team. They worked so well, that I got the word out to other polling locations with longer lines to send people over to our location.
In St. Louis County, Kansas City and other big Missouri Counties, the rules about where you can vote were changed this year. Voters can vote at any polling location and do not have to specifically be in their precinct. This really assisted other voters who had moved or who were not clear about where they were supposed to vote- they could vote anywhere. Sometimes, for bigger elections, additional polling locations are open so it can be confusing about what location to vote.
One of my favorite stories was a lady in line who literally flew in from Japan to vote. I guess she did not trust the absentee ballot process. She said that coming here was not that big of deal but going home she would have to be quarantined for 14 days. Apparently, Japan is very guarded about Americans coming into the country and have controlled the pandemic well. Thanks to everyone who voted yesterday and to all the poll workers and everyone who tried to make this an easy experience for voters.
Our office was referred a case from another lawyer to file a lawsuit after initial settlement discussions were not successful.
On June 5, 2018, our client was shopping at a store in St. Louis County. While he was shopping, an unsecured PVC pipe fell out of the rack and onto his foot, fracturing his toe.
We alleged this was a dangerous condition of the property – the PVC pipes were stored too high enabling them to fall if anyone was taking them down. Defendant knew that people would take these down.
Our client was taken immediately after the incident to the emergency room via ambulance. During his evaluation, emergency room staff contacted a podiatric surgery specialist, regarding his toes. This doctor recommended that our client be seen as an outpatient in his office the next day. He was and had a displaced fracture of his left big toe.
On June 15, 2018, our client underwent an open reduction internal fixation surgery. During surgery a plate, four screens and packing were inserted and remain in place. After surgery, he received a bone stimulator due to the delayed fusion of the multiple breaks in his toe.
A few months later, in October, his wound was not healed from the surgery. He had moved out of state to Maine, and therefore had to be seen by a new podiatrist. This doctor ordered a biopsy and a bone scan of his toes. It was determined that some of the pieces of packing migrated becoming problematic and causing the wound to not heal. This doctor performed an in-office extraction of the packing pieces that had migrated which allowed his wound to heal.
We filed suit, did depositions and took the treating doctors’ depositions by Zoom recorded video. We asserted that the Defendant failed to properly stack and secure the merchandise on the shelves causing a dangerous condition and failing to protect or warn invitees, including Plaintiff of the dangerous condition which contributed to Plaintiff's injury.
We were successful in settlement during a mediation. Our office will be working to get the medical liens reduced and paid for the client as well as sending a co-counsel referral fee check to the referring attorney.
So, I made a number of comments on a thread on a private Facebook group among lawyers about how co-counsel fees are paid to referring lawyers. I thought I would write about it. If a lawyer asks another lawyer to work with them on a case, they can share a contingency fee under Ethics Rule 1.5(e). This provides:
(e) A division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;(2) the client agrees to the association and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and (3) the total fee is reasonable.
Burger Law works with other lawyers and partners with them to get great results for our clients. When we do, we always make sure that the referring lawyer keeps the client as their contact.
When we pay co-counsel fees, we tell the client about it. We usually work under the referring lawyers' contingency fee agreement – but sometimes work under our agreement as well.
The question on the Facebook thread was “Do I pay the fees myself and then pay the referring lawyer or pay it out of my trust account”. The answer is the latter. We always pay the referral fees out of the lawyer’s trust account for a number of reasons.
First, it ensures that the lawyer is paid and that the lien is resolved. It is really beneficial to the client. We also sometimes have a prior lawyer who handled a case for a period of time and then we took it over. If we pay the lawyer directly from the trust account that ensures the client's obligation under Missouri attorneys lien statutes are satisfied.
In addition, paying the lawyer referral fee from the trust account ensures that the money is not taxable income to my firm. We issue 1099’s to other counsel at the end of the year. If you are one of my clients or a referring attorney, I thought you might be interested in learning how this works.
The popular vote in the Presidential election of 2020 is approaching a record-setting 140 million votes. The outcome of this election hangs in the balance as votes are tallied in several key swing states. As we wait eagerly for the announcement of a winner, it is important to remember that this delay can be largely attributed to the state voting laws in these particular states.
For instance, in Georgia, over 250,000 mail ballots remain to be counted. Michigan has reported that 100,000 still need to be counted and Nevada will have until November 12th to finish counting votes. In North Carolina, mail ballots postmarked by November 3rd can be received and added to the total numbers until November 12th.
The state of Pennsylvania requires officials to wait until the morning of Election Day to process mail-in ballots and accepts ballots postmarked by November 3rd as long as they arrive within three days. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is one of six states that does not allow election officials to start processing absentee ballots before election day and although Wisconsin has been called in Biden’s favor, the Trump campaign has already stated publicly that it will pursue a recount in the state of Wisconsin.
As the wait for election results continues, it becomes increasingly important to consider the potential election disputes that may arise as well as the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in resolving such disputes. The Constitution provides that the settlement of presidential election disputes first happens within the state legal system under authority granted by Article II, § 1. Only in the elections of 1876 and 2000 has a presidential election landed before the United States Supreme Court.
Justice Breyer articulated the Court’s reluctance to involve themselves in resolving Presidential election disputes in Bush v. Gore: “However awkward or difficult it may be for Congress to resolve difficult electoral disputes, Congress, being a political body, expresses the people’s will far more accurately than does an unelected Court.” Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (quoting Justice Breyer). In 2020, the Supreme Court has issued a few substantial rulings pertaining to state voting laws
The first allowed ballots received in Pennsylvania up to three days after election day to be counted. The second is a ruling which blocked ballots received in Wisconsin after election day from being counted. Lastly, the Court ruled in favor of allowing absentee ballots in North Carolina to be received and accepted up to November 12th.
Article II requires that presidential electors of every state meet on the same day to cast their votes for president. Congress has specified that date as Monday, December 14th, as Congress is entitled to do. Up until that time, state law may determine the method of appointing a state’s electors.
Article II grants state legislatures broad authority in assigning presidential electors, and this is especially important to consider in battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina because all four of these states have Republicancontrolled legislatures.
The framers of the Constitution did not intend for the Supreme Court to determine the outcome of a presidential election and it remains that the Supreme Court will refrain from resolving an electoral dispute unless state methods for appointing electors implicate constitutional or other federal legal protections.
The 12th Amendment clearly grants Congress the authority to count votes, but the Court’s involvement in the 2000 election demonstrates that Supreme Court intervention is not unprecedented.
A Supreme Court ruling is not designated as a part of the Constitutional process when it comes to selecting a president. The Supreme Court may become involved in resolving an electoral dispute if issues of federal law are raised by the way in which state courts handle their own involvement in these cases or if an electoral dispute is not resolved by the Constitutionally mandated deadline of January 20th. In 2000, the Supreme Court granted certiorari review over federal constitutional questions arising from how the Florida Supreme Court conducted itself on appeal from lawsuits filed initially in state court.
In Bush v. Gore, lawyers on the Republican side argued that the Florida State Supreme Court had overstepped the state legislature’s authority by ordering a recount. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled to stop the recount, but this ruling was based on a finding that different standards for vote-counting in different counties violated the equal protection clause.
Under 3 U.S.C. § 2, if a state holds an election for the purpose of choosing electors but fails to make a choice on the day prescribed, then electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct. The most important question to consider is whether state legislatures have uninhibited authority to appoint presidential electors after an election takes place.
The holding in Bush v. Gore offers that “[w]hen the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental and becomes subject to other constitutional protections, including equal protection and due process.”
It is these protections that may limit the ability of Republican-controlled state legislatures to prioritize their own preferences over the preferences of their constituents. Efforts of state legislatures aimed to subvert equal protection or due process may trigger the involvement of the Supreme Court in determining the outcome of this election.
Very psyched to be presenting at an upcoming CLE by United States Arbitration and Mediation Services on Advocacy Tips and Secrets via Zoom. Since the pandemic, I have done a bunch of Zoom mediations. I have developed effective strategies and ways of presenting during the mediations, which I will share.
Thanks for reading.
So, as the now stale joke goes, 2020 is a dumpster fire of a year (or insert your own analogy to bad stuff here). But as we get ready for Thanksgiving and take stock of this year, I always like to focus on what I am grateful for.
In this edition, I have an article about what I am thankful for in 2020, comments from Burger Law employees in a recent email thread we had about being thankful and a case result.
Gratitude is something that I have learned to work on in my life. It is a way to focus on the glass being half full rather than half empty. Thinking about what we are thankful for, rather than the opposite, does wonders for our attitude. So, without further pontification, here is a list of 10 things I am grateful for in 2020:
On April 24, 2017, our client David was traveling southbound in the right lane on U.S. 67 when another driver, Mr. Lint attempted to change lanes. Mr. Lint steered into the right lane and struck our client’s vehicle. David attempted to steer away, but David’s car became hooked onto Mr. Lint’s vehicle and Mr. Lint lost control. They eventually came to a stop in the median of the highway.
David suffered serious injuries to his neck and upper back, resulting in a disc replacement surgery. He went to countless physical therapy visits, but he may never fully recover.
Instead of admitting fault, the defendant denied the events that took place. Therefore, we had to aggressively fight this case and filed a lawsuit to fight for justice for him.
After three years of litigation and mediation, the defendant and his insurance company decided to do the right thing and offered to settle this case. We were able to obtain a $225,000.00 settlement for our client, just shy of the $250,000.00 policy limit.
This case is a classic example of why it is very important to hire an attorney when you’re seriously injured in a car accident as David was. Without the assistance of our office David may not have been able to settle this case or get this great of a settlement, as the other driver tried to deny the events that took place.
We also had to work through and reduce liens for David. We are proud to have represented David and are always willing to file suit and use the law to obtain the best results for our clients.
With Thanksgiving quickly approaching, I asked the talented Burger Law attorneys, paralegals and support staff what they are thankful for in 2020. It was a great email thread. I encourage you to do this with your family or in your business. Below are some of the responses that I received:
And mine: I am truly thankful for my employees at Burger Law. I am lucky to work with such an amazing group of people. They have all worked hard through this crazy year. I appreciate that they have stuck with me through the ups and the downs. I appreciate that they have listened to my coaching about communication, file reviews and getting work out. Thank you to all of my wonderful co-workers.
Burger Law wishes everyone a Happy and Healthy Thanksgiving!
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to you and your family. It seems we really need these holidays – especially this year.
It’s been a strange and tragic year. All our hearts break for the sad deaths of corona victims – including over 300,000 Americans. But in facing tragedy, it is helpful to look at what we have gratitude for and how to start anew.
Thanksgiving helps us think about the many things for which we are grateful - and not taking our health for granted this year. I discussed this in the last newsletter. I hope that the end of year holidays you celebrate help with new beginnings, moving on and focusing on your future. In that vein, I will turn to business as usual in this newsletter. In our law firm right now, we are busy resolving cases and getting ready for the holidays.
About two months ago we started an in-firm challenge to settle 40 cases by the end of the year. Yesterday, I am pleased to say, we hit our goal – and have 41+ very happy clients. We do this end of year push each year to brighten the holidays for as many clients as we can. In this email, I discuss three settlements and highlight some new podcasts of Lawyer v Lawyer and a new Ask a Lawyer episode.
Debbie Champion and I recorded two new great Lawyer v Lawyer episodes where we discuss some hot issues right now. I have had some great feedback on these, so take a listen.
You can find these wherever you listen to podcasts!
After surviving summary judgment and participating in mediation, we recently settled a case involving a ladder accident for $350,000. As is common with mediation settlements, there is a confidentiality provision that limits what we can say about the case, but here is what we can say:
The liability in this case was hotly disputed from the beginning. Our client was injured in 2018 when a ladder provided to him for a commercial repair project slipped out from under him due to worn down “feet” at the base of the ladder that failed to provide sufficient traction. There were no witnesses to the accident, the defendant denied giving our client the ladder, said our client could have used his own ladder which was on his truck, and claimed it was our client’s own fault the ladder slipped.
As a result of the accident, our client sustained serious spinal injuries requiring emergency surgery. Our lawsuit alleged three different theories of recovery: general negligence, premises liability, and negligent supply of a dangerous instrumentality.
Defendant filed a Motion for Summary judgment on all counts, trying to get our case completely dismissed. They succeeded in dismissing the premises liability count based on the “independent contractor doctrine” which is a defense to premises liability claims. See Matteuzzi v. Columbus P’ship, L.P., 866 S.W.2d 128 (Mo. 1993). This holds that when an independent contractor comes on property and takes control of work, they cannot sue for a dangerous condition.
We did not think it squarely applied here, but had other claims too. We successfully defeated summary judgment on the other two counts and continued on. Ladder cases are tough, and even with the best facts, there is almost always some comparative fault on the person who fell. Because of this, the defendant never made any offer whatsoever until the mediation despite our client’s serious injuries.
We were incredibly pleased with the $350,000 result that we obtained, and defense counsel even said, “I think this is one that we paid more than it was worth” and that no money was left on the table.
Our office was able to get a great settlement for our client Matthew, an over-the-road truck driver.
Matt was driving out of state in Texas when this crash occurred. Another tractor trailer did not secure his trailer load which caused a jack that weighed approximately 200 pounds to fall off. Matt was following in his rig and hit the jack with his tractor.
This destroyed his steering axle and he could not control his truck. Matt did the best he could in a truly emergent situation. His tractor trailer traveled across the highway, into the center median and through the cabal barrier. Although he did strike one other vehicle, he was able to stop his truck in the center median and avoided catastrophic injury to others.
But, during the incident a metal bar from under the truck broke through the floorboard into Matt’s foot. Matthew was transported via ambulance to the emergency room where he required substantial medical care. Due to the severity of his injuries and higher level of care needed, it was determined that Matthew needed to be transferred to a different hospital for surgery. Doctors operated on him and he was discharged after 7 days and was able to return to Missouri.
Matt did a great job documenting the crash scene. Since Matthew was working at the time of this accident, he had not only a civil claim but also a worker’s compensation claim. But because the accident happened in Texas and Matthew's employer is in Indiana and Matthew lives in Missouri, his workers compensation claim was in Indiana.
Our office obtained worker’s compensation lawyers in Indiana to help get Matthew the treatment and benefits he needed during his recovery. Once Matthew was released from treatment and settled his workers compensation claim, our office was able to proceed with the civil claim against the at fault trucking company and driver. We usually try to resolve the comp claim before the civil claim for lien purposes.
We were able to settle the civil claim for Matthew for $212,500. However, since Matthew had a worker’s compensation claim, there was a lien on the civil claim for the benefits paid for Matthew’s weekly benefit payment while he was off work and the medical bills paid through the workers compensation claim.
Our office was able to get a 50% reduction on that lien to ensure that our client received the most money possible in his pocket for the injuries and suffering he sustained in this accident. We are always happy to help truck driver clients as well as clients who are in accidents out of state. It’s good to be able to help Matt navigate the different claims and legal hurdles.
Burger Law wishes everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy holidays!
521 W. Main Street Suite 201 O
Belleville, IL 62220
By appointment only
(618) 500-4878 GET DIRECTIONS332 S Michigan Ave Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60604
By appointment only
(312) 500-HURT GET DIRECTIONS100 Chesterfield Business Pkwy Suites 200-222
Chesterfield, MO 63005
By appointment only
(314) 648-8348 GET DIRECTIONSNO FEES UNTIL WE WIN YOUR CASE
We offer free consultations and are available 24/7 to take your call. Live chat, text, and virtual meetings are available.
or call us at
(314) 500-HURT