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.
A new study ranks the deadliest stretches of highway in the Metropolitan St. Louis area.
The highway on the top of the list might be surprising. It is not 270, 44 or 55. The deadliest highway is a half mile stretch of Page Ave in Wellston, St. Louis, between Sutter and R.M. Moore Avenues.
A small and inconspicuous part of Highway D in North County. There were three fatal crashes resulting in three deaths between 2015-16. That is a remarkably high number considering that it is just half a mile.
This leads us to the question: What makes this stretch of Page Ave so dangerous?
There are two-way stop sign intersections along the road and there is an alarming lack of street lights. The lack of clear road signs and signals is how one-way accidents are caused. People constantly disobey traffic laws when it comes to stop signs.
It’s called the St. Louis Stop - it’s in the Urban dictionary. Definition: an action where you come up to a stop sign looking both ways but never actually make a complete stop.
They gun it through intersections to beat traffic or don’t come to a complete stop and roll through, colliding with drivers on the highway. If these intersections had traffic lights, drivers would have more cause to obey the rules of the intersection, and less deaths are likely to occur.
But this is a state highway, and is out of the control of the city of Wellston. It falls into MODOT jurisdiction, and traffic lights take considerably more money than a stop sign.
The street lights, however, do fall into city jurisdiction. And considering the deadly toll this highway has had on drivers, it is important to take action to prevent the loss of life.
In Missouri, auto accidents kill more people under the age of 54 than anything else.
I represent people who have lost loved ones in auto accidents all the time, and what I do is look at the contributing factors and the laws that are in place that should protect drivers. It is important to remember that intersections are one of the most dangerous places when on the road.
At the end of 2018 the Illinois Supreme Court delivered an opinion that leaves a lot of questions for Plaintiffs going into the new year. In Palm v. Holocker, the Court found where the defendant’s medical condition is not at issue, they can invoke the physician-patient privilege to bar production of medical records.
However, this standard invokes a lot of uncertainty on what qualifies as "at issue," despite the court attempting to flush out a hardline rule.
In Holocker, Plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent when he hit her while she was crossing the sidewalk. She alleged he failed to keep and maintain a safe and proper lookout, failed to stop at the stop sign, and failed to yield the right-of-way to the plaintiff.
These are the most common types of negligence allegations.
The defendant answered and alleged that plaintiff was negligent in that she improperly crossed a street when it was unsafe to do so, failed to keep a proper lookout; and was under the influence of an alcoholic or narcotic substance that impaired her ability at the time of the accident.”
During discovery, defendant admitted he had a medical condition, diabetes, but refused to answer anything beyond. The plaintiffs argued that his diabetes had affected his eyesight and they were entitled to his medical records to find out because his sight was at issue because it was relevant to whether it caused the defendant to hit the plaintiff.
The trial court found that plaintiff had legitimate reasonable cause to believe that defendant had sight problems that could have been related to the accident and that plaintiff had “a right to look for that.”
The appellate court reversed. Plaintiff argued that “an issue” simply means relevant. The appellate court disagreed. The court held that section 8-802(4) of Illinois law applies only when a defendant affirmatively places his or her health at issue and that a plaintiff cannot waive someone else’s privilege.
The court held that “[n]either the nature of a plaintiff’s cause of action nor factual allegations in a plaintiff’s complaint waive a defendant’s physician-patient privilege.” For a prior analysis of these legal issues in a CLE I did, see briefs we have on our website here. These cover the Missouri law as well.
This has potential implications. The holding could also be phrased as where a defendant’s health is at issue, the medical records are relevant and Plaintiff can obtain them. But what is “at issue?” It is not simply what is relevant -- but only when a defendant affirmatively places his or her health at issue.
What does it mean for a defendant to place their health at issue? In effect, only when the defendant essentially admits negligence is the Plaintiff able to obtain the defendant's medical records.
Our client Chris was injured on February 29, 2016. The car crash occurred when foam from a truck owned by Defendant Ragsdale Construction came out of his truck bed on Interstate 55. This caused another car to swerve and strike a vehicle, pushing it into Chris’s vehicle.
Chris then crashed into the median. We took depositions and showed that folks on the highway saw a metal plate vertically in the back and thought it was about to come off.
The defendant truck driver (Tucker) agreed that the people who were stopping didn’t know what was coming out of his truck-a piece of Styrofoam or a chunk of metal. Tucker never looked to see why the Styrofoam was getting out onto the road. He didn’t really inspect it.
Tucker admitted to me in deposition that:
Five vehicles were involved in the accident:
Chris sustained injuries to his left leg, neck, back, and head – the more severe injuries were to his head and neck. He had an MRI which showed a small brain hemorrhage. He received chiropractic care for his neck and back. His neck MRI showed disc bulges. Chris did physical therapy and had four neck injections.
Chris’s brain and neck injury also caused him to experience dental issues, as clinching his neck and jaw caused him to grind his teeth. He saw Dr. Nikodem multiple times for broken teeth and dental implants.
Chris experienced severe headaches for four to five months. He had cognitive difficulties, including memory loss and difficulties with focus and concentration. Although his symptoms have improved, Chris still has occasional headache and cognitive difficulties and neck pain.
Chris’s billed medical expenses were $41,872.30, with paid medical being much less. And after a mediation, we settled the case! It was the quickest mediation I have ever done - it was the day of the big snowstorm.
In the last newsletter I talked about an award I was getting from Missouri Lawyers Weekly for the Corrections Officer's case I have talked about. The event took place on Friday the 25th of January. It was a great event. To see all of the attorneys there honored for all the hard work they do for their clients was great to see and be a part of.
There were amazing cases, incredible people helping others, and funny stories shared. I am honored to have gotten to be a part of it this year. Taylor and Casey were my main trial assistants and did amazing support work to get that verdict. Thanks team.
A lot of exciting news at the firm recently. Updates on class actions and lime bikes are below, along with a discussion of a bunch of drunk driving cases we currently have.
But first, puppies. Yes, we started fostering again (for my wife Kristen's birthday. They are too cute (William too) - available at the APA this Saturday.
I take great pride in helping people in car wreck cases where the defendant is intoxicated with alcohol or drugs. It seems like defendants hire lawyers who get them out of the criminal case. Sometimes people get multiple drunk driving convictions.
I tend to think that for every time a drunk driver is caught, they have done it a hundred other times. So, having a civil lawsuit and real consequence helps make them change their behavior and makes the roads safer for all of us.
Sometimes these settle quickly – but you would be surprised at how many we have to litigate for a long time.
We file suit in them at the first hint of low offers. We file a regular negligence count and a separate "per se" count. We say:
Then we ask for punitive damages – that the defendant be punished for drunk driving and to dissuade him/her from doing it in the future. We plead:
Serious injuries and damages happen when people drive drunk:
My client Elizabeth was stopped on Nichols Rd. at the intersection of 5th Street, waiting to make a right turn onto Northbound 5th Street in St. Charles.
The drunk driver tried to turn left onto Southbound 5th street and crashed into the front of an oncoming vehicle and then into the driver side of Elizabeth's stopped vehicle.
Luckily, Elizabeth was more shocked than hurt. But the insurance adjuster would not offer much and kept saying the medical expenses are low.
And she insisted we had no conviction on record for the DUI and downplayed it. How did we know he was drunk?
Glad Elizabeth took pictures at the scene. Here's how we knew:
There is no insurance coverage for punitive damages. Seeking them puts pressure to settle. Because if they do not settle, and there is a punitive damages verdict and judgment, the insurance company can be on the hook for it.
Defendants may try to delay resolution of the criminal case to help in the civil case. That's ok by me – I file suit and try to take a deposition of the defendant right away.
This forces the defendant to take the 5th and not testify. If he does, he can jeopardize his criminal case. If he doesn't answer my questions, we get a jury instruction presumption that the defendant's answer would have been against his interest.
Alcohol impaired driving fatalities have steadily declined since I was in high school.
But my experiences are personal - I meet and represent the victims and their families after. I could fill your inbox with stories and pictures of these tragedies.
We settled a case for $5 Million for the family of a man killed in a car - tractor trailer crash.
In the early morning hours of June 15, 2013, our client was leaving a casino and went through an intersection on a green light. A tractor trailer proceeded southbound on South Broadway in St. Louis, Missouri violated a red traffic signal and crashed into our client’s truck.
It was a disastrous impact with both vehicles traveling in different directions. The tractor trailer took out some light poles and its cargo was spilled all over the road. The trucking accident impact not only caused a lot of property damage to the neighbor but also destroyed both vehicles.
We filed suit and proceeded with litigation on behalf of the family. We also conducted a quick and extensive investigation to identify some amazing liability evidence and to secure the evidence at the scene.
We had an investigator at the location of the crash quickly. We were able to show through the timing of the lights that the tractor trailer went through the red light. We interviewed witnesses who also advised.
We obtained the autopsy and toxicology reports which slammed home liability.
We were also able to show because of the skid marks of the tractor trailer that it not only ran the red light that it was over the center line and was on the wrong side of the road at the time of the impact. We were able to show from witness accounts that the tractor trailer was speeding at the time of the accident.
These were all difficult things to show as our client died in this crash and the witnesses were limited for this early morning incident.
We were also able to keep the venue in the City of St. Louis. The truck accident case was originally filed in the City of St. Louis. The Defendant sought to remove the case to Federal Court. However, we opened an Estate for the deceased truck driver.
We also currently represent Dionna in St. Louis County. She was driving on the exit ramp from Interstate 64 at McKnight Road and came to a stop at the signal.
The intoxicated defendant was also exiting Interstate 64 at McKnight, behind Plaintiff’s vehicle.
He rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle. She had no warning. The claim rep would not settle fairly so we filed suit and litigated.
We just settled the case for $70,000.
If you have a drunk driving case, pursue it vigorously.
We get the defendant's medical records and criminal records to prove the intoxication. We get them to admit it in depositions or Requests for Admissions. We try these cases to make sure our clients are fully compensated.
I attended the Lawyers' Weekly event for the biggest verdicts and settlements a couple weeks ago. It was really fun to see and meet so many hard working and successful lawyers.
Humbled to be counted in their group. Really inspires me to keep up my efforts to stay at the top of my field. The Lawyers' weekly photographer captured me visiting with another class action lawyer from the western side of the state.
We have moved for contempt against the Missouri Department of Corrections for failure to comply with the Court's Order in our Class Action Case. We will let you know how the hearing goes.
Thought I would update you on our class action case.
At my request, last Thursday the Circuit Clerk of Cole County issued garnishments to two banks used by the State of Missouri for $118 Million to try to satisfy our judgment against the State.
We also filed a Contempt Motion as the State has not complied with the trial court's order.
I will go into more detail below. Then: podcasts and videos with my mom, advice about another court order affecting the State and goodbye Lime bikes.
1. We filed a Motion for Contempt against the State and the Department of Corrections because they have not complied with the court's order. That Motion is scheduled for hearing on April 1, 2019, in Cole County Circuit Court.
2. We filed the Contempt Motion because the defendant: (1) is not compensating its COs for the pre- and post-shift duties they perform every day; (2) has not implemented a timekeeping system to record the time its COs spend performing those duties; and (3) has not provided notice to Class Counsel, MOCOA, or the Court of any efforts to change those practices. This conduct is in direct violation and in contempt of the Court’s Amended Judgment.
3. Defendant was required to seek a supersedeas bond “at or prior to the time of filing notice of appeal” to cover the wages earned by the COs while the appeal is pending in order for the Amended Judgment to be stayed. State ex rel. GTE N., Inc. v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 835 S.W.2d 356, 366 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 81.09(a); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 512.080.1.
An appeal bond is used to stay the issuance of an execution until the cause can be passed upon and disposed of by the appellate court.” A bond guarantees that a party’s ability to collect on a judgment is not impaired although execution is deferred, if that party is successful on appeal. Id.; see also Green v. Perr, 238 S.W.2d 922, 923 (Mo. App. St. Louis 1951) (“purpose of a supersedeas bond is to stay the execution or enforcement, pending the appeal, of any order or judgment which commands or permits some act to be done”); Roussin v. Roussin, 792 S.W.2d 894, 898 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990).
4. The DOC made no efforts to obtain a bond, and without one in place, there are no funds available to reimburse Plaintiffs’ Class for their wages.
5. At the same time, the DOC’s defiance of the Court’s Amended Judgment is resulting in significant lost wages for Plaintiffs’ class, with unpaid overtime accruing at a rate of approximately $787,989 every month.
6. In the Motion for contempt, we ask for and order: (1) finding Defendant in contempt of court; (2) ordering the immediate implementation of the policies and procedures set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Judgment entered on September 14, 2018; (3) awarding Class Plaintiffs the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result of Defendant’s contempt; and (4) sanction the DOC $1,575,978 per month since the date of judgment to be paid to the class and distributed per the Court’s Amended Order and Judgment.
7. At my request, the Cole County Circuit Clerk garnished two banks in which the State of Missouri holds money for over $118 Million on Friday.
8. The case is still being appealed by the State of Missouri.
9. The record on appeal was completed and filed with the Western District Court of Appeals on January 28, 2019.The State's brief is due March 29, 2019.
10. With interest, the verdict is now almost $119 Million.
So excited to have my mom working hard with me at the firm.
She and I did three episodes of our Lawyer v. Lawyer podcast together. We discuss a wide range of topics about litigation strategy and techniques.
Podcast gold.
A federal court has ruled that the State of Missouri cannot use SB 1007 to infringe on unions rights to collectively bargain.
The State of Missouri is using SB1007 to try to end collective bargaining agreements with its employees’ unions and eliminate grievance procedures. Not sure why they want aggrieved employees to run to court.
If they are successful, it will be a new area of litigation.
Ten months after bike sharing companies turned St. Louis streets into a mishmash of brightly colored bicycles, Lime, which first launched its fleet in April 2018, is calling it quits on the traditional pedals-and-gears mode of transport.
In a statement, Lime spokesman Norm Sterzenbach confirmed that the company — which at one point managed a St. Louis bike fleet of 1,500 — is now acting to replace the bike stock with its electric scooters.
"In St. Louis and the surrounding communities, Lime riders are overwhelmingly choosing Lime electric products as their preferred micro mobility vehicles," Sterzenbach said. "In the coming weeks we will be replacing Lime bikes with electric scooters throughout the greater St. Louis Metro."
I am heading out of town today for a college visit with my oldest son. So, I thought I'd send an early Sunday email. I love Sundays - what’s your favorite Sunday quote?
"Easy like Sunday morning."
“A Sunday well spent brings a week of content.”
“Sunday. A day to refuel your soul and be grateful for your blessings. Take a deep breath and relax. Enjoy your family, your friends, and a cup of coffee.”
Below I discuss some Motion practice we had in the last couple weeks - More Definite and Certain and some more videos with my mom, and a motion we won in Illinois involving underinsured motorist coverage and Statutes of Limitations.
But I also thought I'd share that I'm excited that my bees made it through the winter. Both hives. As the weather starts warming up, they are getting more active and the queen is making more bees (brood). But the weather is variable so they don't quite know what to do.
I am providing them sugar and pollen to get a jumpstart on real spring. Hopefully we will get more steady warm weather soon.
We faced two Motions for More Definite Statements last week.
Defense attorneys file Motions for a More Definite Statement in both state and federal court. When Burger Law files suit on behalf of its clients, we sometimes encounter and respond to these types of motions – and usually win. Other times, we know we will likely lose, and instead of fighting it, we preemptively amend our Petition or Complaint to avoid a trip to court.
But what is a Motion for a More Definite Statement? Why are these motions filed? How should plaintiff attorneys respond to these motions?
Missouri and Illinois are fact-pleading states. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp v. Mid Atl. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 379 (Mo. banc 1993); 735 ILCS 5/2-603(a). A legal complaint/petition must contain “a short and plain statement of the facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.27(d); City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp, 821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 20024).
The purpose of this standard is “to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.” Gardner v. Bank of America, N.A., 466 S.W.3d 642, 646 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). A Petition or Complaint is good enough when it invokes principles of substantive law which entitle the pleader to relief and lets the defendant know what the plaintiff will do at trial. See Kantel Communications, Inc. v. Casey, 865 S.W.2d 685, 691 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993).
The Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure let a party to move for a more definite statement of matters pleaded without “sufficient definiteness and particularity” to enable the opposing party to respond or prepare for trial." Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.27(d); see also 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a). These motions are not a test of the truth or evidence supporting the pleading, only the clarity of the pleading itself. Hartvedt v. Harpst, 172 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. 1943).
A party might also file a Motion for a More Definite Statement when the facts alleged are vague or broad. See, Bennett v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 698 S.W.2d 854, 865 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985). One example is when the defendant is trying to figure out particular types of injuries in a negligence case. See, Bennet at 865. Defendants also commonly file them when there are multiple claims and more than one defendant, and it is unclear if the Plaintiff is suing all defendants for all claims. Also, in employment cases where the alleged wrongful conduct spanned a long period of time, defendants will file these motions asking plaintiffs to say the exact date of each wrongful act, because some recovery might be barred by the statute of limitations.
Defense attorneys will also often file Motions for a More Definite Statement to test the adequacy of a Petition alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), as the MMPA has a heightened particularity standard, requiring more detail. See Gardner v. Bank of America, N.A., 466 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). This is true when any fraud is alleged, such as fraudulent misrepresentation.
In fact, this just happened to us! In a case where we are suing major drug companies for, among other things, misleading consumers about the safety of their drugs, the defendant filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement saying we did not provide enough details to state a MMPA claim.
Genavieve Fikes and Jake Thomeczek researched the law, filed a response, and stood our ground in court. But, alas, we lost and now have to amend our pleadings.
What are your options when defense counsel files a Motion for a More Definite Statement? You can, of course, fight the Motion. In doing so, you should point out that under Missouri’s fact-pleading standard, a pleading is sufficient so long as it gives the defendant enough information to respond.
I always say, it’s not like the defendant is going to go ahead and admit anything just because I amend it, so what’s the point. Apparently, that argument won’t work all the time.
Often it may be simpler – and save you a trip to the courthouse, to just amend your pleading and cure any defects described in the defendant’s motion. This is what we did in response to a Motion for More Definite Statement in our second case. Defendants rightfully claimed we needed to plead fraud allegations with more specificity, including the “who, when, where, and how” details of a fraudulent statement.
Rather than fight a legitimate motion, we just conceded and preemptively filed an Amended Petition, which the court would have made us do anyway. Burger Law has the experience necessary to deal with Motions for a More Definite Statement and other complex pleadings. If you need help with a complex case, call us to discuss co-counsel and referral opportunities at [wdac-phone].
We won a Summary Judgment Motion against our client Tony which enabled us to settle his Underinsured Motorist Claim for $50,000. We put the insurance company on notice of the claim properly.
Call me at [wdac-phone] if you want the full briefs on the issue.
Spring has sprung after what seems like a long winter. Trees are budding, flowers are starting and I'm starting to get out and about with the family. Below, I discuss a workers compensation settlement, how we plead Merchandising practice Act violations against Opioid Manufacturers, a video about our firm, and my favorite hiking area near St. Louis.
We recently settled a Workers’ Compensation claim that was a battle from the beginning.
Our client Gregg was a long-time employee of James Mulligan Printing, Co. While lifting a stack of paper to put into a printing press, he felt a pull and tear in his left shoulder.
Ultimately, doctors diagnosed him with bicipital tendinitis and a rotator cuff tear. Gregg required surgery on his shoulder, and missed time from work while recovering.
When Gregg returned to work after his surgery, his manager moved him to a different printing press that paid him about 60% of his pre-injury wage. This was a form of retaliation, albeit more subtle. We fought it and filed a Hardship requesting full past temporary total disability (“TTD”), or lost wages.
Gregg’s employer refused to pay. We litigated and did depositions. We mediated the hardship and obtained $11,000.00 in compensation for him for changing his job.
Gregg’s employer refused to comply with the Workers’ Compensation law, and would not have paid Gregg this money without the judge’s order.
Gregg is reluctant to pursue a civil retaliation claim as he values his job and the bad managers that made this decision have since been fired. We have about three other retaliation claims now where folks have been flat out terminated because of their on-the-job injury.
Physicians chosen by James Mulligan Printing Co.’s insurance carrier provided all of Gregg’s medical treatment, but the insurance carrier dramatically undervalued the severity of his injury and his claim.
Gregg’s employer required that he undergo a functional capacity evaluation to determine his restrictions and ability to work. These physical therapists, again chosen by Gregg’s employer, determined that Gregg could handle a “very heavy demand vocation.” Subsequently, they only offered 7.5% disability of the shoulder to settle his claim.
Unwilling to accept such an inadequate offer, we mediated Gregg’s claim in front of an administrative law judge to get her recommended settlement value. The employer’s counsel downplayed Gregg’s injury, whereas we vigorously advocated for Gregg and highlighted how this injury still affects him daily.
The judge recommended a settlement value of 27.5% disability of the shoulder – well above the 7.5% the employer was trying to pay!
When negotiating settlement with opposing counsel, we reiterated how poorly Gregg’s employer treated him, and were able to convince them to offer even more than the judge’s recommendation.
We were pleased to settle Gregg’s claim for 30% disability of the shoulder, which based on his wage rate, came out to $32,334.76. Additionally, we obtained $11,000 in disputed TTD payments, and additional 14 weeks of undisputed TTD payments, and payment of all of his medical bills.
Our client is pleased with our work – it was a long and hard-fought case.
We have multiple lawsuits against Opioid Manufacturers for their dangerous products killing our clients. We sued them under strict and negligent products liability. But, were also sure to sue them for fraud.
We use the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”), RSMo § 407.020 provides, in part, as follows:
”The act, use, or employment of any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, false misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce … in or from the state of Missouri, is declared to be an unlawful practice.”
In our lawsuits we allege that Defendant has employed and used deception in connection with the sale and advertisement of opioid medications in the State of Missouri.
We allege the Defendant knowingly directly and indirectly represented and advertised to our client and his physicians that Defendant’s opioid product(s):
We allege and show that Defendant knowingly misrepresented and/or concealed:
We have to show that the decedent purchased and used the Defendant’s opioid products for personal (non-commercial) purposes under the MMPA.
We allege and prove that as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s deceptive practices, Plaintiff’s Decedent sustained damages, including addiction, withdrawal, and eventual death.
Our clients' families are entitled to recover their actual damages, attorney’s fees, and other equitable relief under RSMo § 407.025.
If you typed this into Google, I do not know what you get, so I thought I'd share my favorite hike close to me. Super-secret not a lot of people, like other locations.
It’s really West Tyson Park in St. Louis County – but I go to the back side near the Meramec River and The Chubb Trail.
Come join us for our CLE on May 29 at the MAC downtown. Full day CLE with all your ethics needs for the year. Come learn law and all about running your business - you will increase the value of your practice. Guaranteed.
Below, I also discuss two settlements from last week and Gardening with my kids on this Earth Day.
I represented Brad in his car accident claim. Brad was hit by a truck that swerved and crossed over the center-line into oncoming traffic and hit Brad head on. Brad had a passenger in his car and both were hurt pretty badly.
Brad hurt his knee, ankle, and chest in the accident. He went to the ER and did physical therapy. His lingering issue was a left Achilles tendon strain and left ankle instability. His surgeon recommended Brad undergo a left ankle arthroscopy with debridement and left ankle Bostrom procedure.
Brad also had significant back pain that was not subsiding with conservative treatment. His pain was constant and it would wake him up in the middle of the night. Brad eventually underwent injections to eliminate the pain.
We fought for Brad against the insurance company. We first demanded full policy limits. Brad had significant medical damage and would need future care from his injuries. The insurance company wouldn't pay the limits so we filed suit and litigated it. We keep going till we persuade them of the wisdom of our position.
We eventually recovered $100,000 for Brad to cover his medical treatment and bills. But that was not where we stopped. We helped Brad, as we help all our clients, reduce his liens. I have done other blogs about how we are so successful in reducing liens.
When clients have significant injuries and bills but the liable party doesn't have enough insurance to cover it, our office helps reduce liens under the Missouri Statute for our clients.
We settled a workers compensation case and an automobile accident for our client Daniel.
Daniel was rear-ended on the highway at a high rate of speed when the other driver wasn't paying attention to traffic ahead of her. Like Brad above, Daniel had significant medical expenses from his accident. Daniel was treated consistently by a physical therapist and also received steroid injections.
The insurance company didn't want to pay for all of the treatment and had given Daniel a low offer in the beginning. We fought hard and negotiated a lot.
Sometimes, insurance companies try to give a low offer if there are prior injuries, if they think the impact is low, or if there are gaps in treatment, like here. However, we know sometimes life happens and you can't make appointments, and that the back pain you had two years ago isn't what caused your back pain after a significant accident.
That's why we always negotiate with insurance companies to mitigate these factors. We did that for our client Daniel who had seen a chiropractor for ten years prior to this accident.
The insurance company tried to say that not all of Daniel's back pain came from this accident. But after some back and forth, we were able to raise the defendants offer over $30,000 to $61,000.
Check out the blogs and podcasts I have done on using different techniques to get a good result for your client and how to negotiate with insurance companies.
Every year we put in a garden to feed the squirrels - JK. We usually have good results and are hopeful for another good harvest. Our okra, broccoli, peppers, cauliflower and sunflowers do best.
But we are always trying new stuff. This year our strawberries are coming up strong and we are hopeful our asparagus will finally do well. Both of these take a few years to get going.
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