Florida is ranked among the top five states in illegal street (drag) racing of cars and motorcycles, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, resulting in injuries and deaths from crashes. Capt. Keith Gaston of the Florida Highway Patrol calls it a very dangerous crime, and the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles issues many citations each year. NBC-2 reported that on August 28, an 84 year old grandmother, a passenger in her granddaughter’s car, died after an accident on Immokalee and Livingston Roads in North Naples. Witnesses to the accident say the granddaughter’s car was hit by a Honda Civic which they believed was involved in drag racing. The Honda was driven by a 37 year old male who lost control of his vehicle. Investigators are looking into the possibility that the accident was drag-racing and/or alcohol-related. A young woman in the Tampa Bay area died in May as a result of a brain injury suffered after being struck by a racing vehicle while vacationing in Jacksonville. Witnesses to the accident reported seeing a Volkswagen Beetle (VW) striking the rear of the mother’s pickup truck when the VW was racing along the road. The pickup truck rolled several times before coming to a stop. If you are the subject of a motor vehicle accident, call Naples-area attorney Robert Gluck at 1-877-GLUCK-LAW for a free, no-obligation consultation where you can learn more about your potential case. You can also learn about Mr. Gluck on his website RobertGluck.com
Earlier this month, a Florida appeals court upheld a state PIP statute that stands for the proposition that a chiropractor isn’t considered an authorized medical physician for the purposes of an emergency medical condition determination. The case noted that in February 2013, an insured of Progressive’s, Alejandro Godoy, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Miami. He suffered bodily injuries relating to the accident and treated with Eduardo Garrido, a chiropractor. Godoy assigned his Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits to Garrido, resulting in Garrido submitting invoices to the insurer for chiropractic treatment that totaled $6075.12. Progressive paid $2500 in PIP benefits and refused to pay any more, as there was no required determination of an emergency medical condition that necessitated treatment by an authorized physician as per section 627.736 (1)(a)3 of the Florida Statutes. Garrido responded by filing a lawsuit against the carrier which sought the full $10,000 PIP benefit and disputed the fact that he was not qualified as an authorized physician, because chiropractors are not included in the list of authorized physicians under the statute. The trial court found that “a portion of Florida’s PIP statute is unconstitutional as applied to chiropractors; and (ii) determined that, in the absence of an “emergency medical condition” diagnosis, Florida’s PIP statute allows an insured to recover up to $10,000 in PIP benefits. The trial court certified the constitutional issue to the appeals court as a question of great public importance. The appeals court reversed the trial court’s findings and found that the statute’s requirements are not unconstitutional as applied to chiropractors, thus his diagnosis of Godoy was insufficient to trigger the $10,000 PIP benefits limit. For information about your personal injury case call Plantation lawyer Robert Gluck at 1-877-GLUCK-LAW and look at his web page at RobertGluck.com
In a stunning defeat for medical providers across the state of Florida, a divided Florida Supreme Court on Thursday sided with Allstate Insurance Company in a dispute about fees paid to care for victims of automobile accidents. The 4-3 ruling focused on the personal-injury protection insurance program and attempts by Allstate to pay providers under certain fee schedules from the dated Medicare program. The fee schedules involve limits on payments for services rendered. Medical providers challenged the archaic practice, arguing that insurance policies were “ambiguous” about whether Allstate would use the fee schedules to curtail reimbursements. The 4th District Court of Appeal, in a 2015 ruling that involved 32 similar and alike cases, backed the providers. But the majority of the Supreme Court overturned that prior decision last month, finding that Allstate’s policies provided “legally sufficient notice” that the insurer would use the Medicare fee schedules. The unanticipated 15-page decision, written by Justice Charles Canady and joined three other Justices, provided a detailed analysis of the policy wording and the personal-injury protection, or PIP, law. Providers are not limited by the medicare fee schedules promulgated a long time ago and Allstate must pay according to those schedules. The complete article on this subject matter can be located at http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/01/26/supreme-court-backs-insurer-on-pip-medical-fees/. For more information on Florida personal injury litigation, please click on www.robertgluck.com/personal-injury.html. Mr. Gluck can also be reached toll free at 1-877-GLUCK-LAW.
Opposition is mounting in the business community to proposed legislation that is being considered by the Florida legislature that would require Florida courts to include prejudgement interest in any final lawsuit award. As it stands now, in all personal injury cases in Florida, a jury will award an amount of damages, and then interest will be added by the Court in its final judgment until the amount of damages payment is made in full. Senate Bill 334, introduced by state Sen. Greg Steube (R-Sarasota), will require a court to include prejudgement interest in an award from which the plaintiff recovers both monetary and non-monetary damages. It also requires a court to include that same interest on attorney fees and costs. The proposed legislation will effectively mean juries and courts would calculate, and add, all interest from the time of the loss. For more information on this, please see click here. For details on how you can preserve your personal injury rights check out http://www.robertgluck.com/personal-injury.html. You may also call the office directly, toll-free at 1-877-GLUCK-LAW.
Florida Woman Falls Off Donkey Statue In Front Of Mexican Restaurant, Sues Restaurant For Damages A woman in Tallahassee, Florida has filed suit against a local Mexican restaurant after she fractured her spine falling off of the popular donkey statue in front of the local eatery. Kimberly Bonn was eating at the El Jalisco on August 31, 2015 when she attempted to climb up on the donkey statue that was built to scale. This is a popular event among the diners at the restaurant, according to Fox News. Click for details Bonn maintains the position that the restaurant failed to safeguard diners who attempted this feat by having the saddle with too slick a surface and by failing to provide steps or a ladder to climb up on the donkey, Bonn is seeking damages in excess of the circuit court minimum requirement of $15,000.00. For more information on premises liability or slip and fall actions, and a free case evaluation that you might have, please look on the internet for www.robertgluck.com/attorney/trip-slip-and-fall-accidents-attorney.html. You can also call the office toll free at 1-877-GLUCK LAW.
The State of Florida is considering making changes to Florida’s car insurance laws that would change the PIP mandate and require drivers to carry bodily injury coverage instead. The current PIP mandate requires everyone to have their own insurance for most of their own medical bills, no matter who is at fault. The likelihood is that the PIP mandate will be replaced with a requirement that drivers carry bodily injury liability insurance to cover the bodily injuries of any motorist they injure as a result of a car crash that is due to their fault. Senators have been discussing this and are in favor of abandoning PIP, but only if it will lower the premiums that motorists are currently paying. Studies show that motorists could save $81 per year in the event that PIP is extinguished and no longer required. The entire article can be found here. For more information on auto accidents please see RobertGluck.com and learn about what your rights are when involved in an automobile collision.
In California, a grandmother was on a treadmill at her local gym. She fainted and fell off the back of the treadmill. After fainting, she hit the back of her head on another piece of gym equipment as she fell backwards. The gym that she belonged to only had a four foot “safety zone” behind the treadmill instead of the industry recommended six feet of clearance. This lack of an adequate “safety zone” is the basis for claiming the gym was responsible for her brain injury. For the most part, members of a gym like 24 Hour Fitness, or even small gyms not part of a chain or franchise require you to sign a document when you join called a “waiver of liability” also described as a “release” or a “waiver”. This document is mixed in with all the other documents or contracts you sign when you join such a facility. The waiver says that you are barred from bringing a claim against the gym for any injuries you sustain while working out there. Most of these releases claim to relieve the gym of liability, even for the gym’s own negligence. Most of the time, the language of these releases are strictly construed by the courts around the country and they work to bar you from suing your gym. Even if you sue, these releases prevent most of these cases from going forward. What is unique about this California case is that the plaintiff is not alleging there was any defect in the machine or that the fainting was anyone else’s fault. She is simply alleging the “safety zone” was not wide enough to protect her from hitting her head. In this California case, the court ruled that the release, which usually prevents these claims altogether, was in English and the injured person spoke Spanish only. Based on this, the court said that she can go forward with her claim on two grounds. First, that there was fraud on the part of the gym, by making someone sign a form in a language they don’t speak or read and the second theory upon which the court said she could go forward is the theory that the club was not just negligent for failing to maintain their club in a reasonably safe condition (in which case the claim would be barred due to the signed waiver) but that the gym was grossly negligent, which is a higher level of wrongdoing and gross negligence would not be covered by the waiver. In most of these treadmill injury cases fault for the incident rests with the person using the equipment, not the gym. This California case demonstrates that none of these gym cases are so simple and under the right circumstances, just because you signed a waiver, does not automatically mean you have no claim if you get injured. It is important to have your case reviewed by an experienced personal injury lawyer who has handled situations involving waivers of liability forms and various other tactics that defendants use to avoid responsibility for their actions. If you or a loved one was injured at a gym and the claim was denied, there may still be time to re-open your case. Call Robert Gluck to schedule a free consultation at 877-Gluck-law. Full Story
Class Action Lawsuit against Apple over the new I Phone 7 was filed last week Lawyers have pounced on Apple before the first I Phone 7 was even shipped and slapped them with a class action lawsuit. This lawsuit is over the rights of I Phone users in an upgrade program to have quick access to the new I phone per the promise Apple made to them when they joined the program. They argue they should have been able to get their new phones before everyone else. This is a perfect example to explain to you what happens in this and other typical class action lawsuits brought by lawyers for some small consumer related claim such as this. Usually a “named plaintiff” will file suit on behalf of themselves and all other “similarly situated” Apple customers also in the upgrade program. The logic behind this type of claim is sound. If all of the people in the upgrade program have the same issue, they should all be lumped together into one lawsuit. The problem is, this is not the type of case where a lawyer would make any money for the client or themselves for an individual claim. This is so because one person’s damages would amount to the emotional distress of not getting the phone quick enough and the right to a refund of the cost of the “upgrade program” due to Apple not following through on the promise to get these folks their phones first. This would be a $20.00 claim per person so no lawyer would take it. Now, with the use of the “class action” procedures, the first lawyer to file suit for one client can now add all 200,000 people or more who are “similarly situated” to the named plaintiff in the lawsuit. What ends up happening in these types of cases and what I predict will happen with this one is that each person who is a party to the class action will get a coupon for $50.00 or less towards a new phone or to use however they please and the lawyer who filed the class action will make a multi million dollar lawyer’s fee. Yes, you read that correctly. Typically, the net result of 99% of these types of class action lawsuits is a coupon that most people end up never even using and the lawyer makes millions in attorney’s fees. The only plaintiff that usually makes any money in these situations is the named plaintiff who is the first one to file suit. That is the reason this lawsuit was filed within days of the announced release. Thios lawyer wanted to be the first to file. This my friends is the American way. Apple shareholders will be the ones to pay the lawyer’s fees. One would think Apple has attorneys that would advise them that they better get these folks their phones first or the company would end up having to pay millions to a lawyer down the road in a silly and unnecessary class action lawsuit. Apple shares are doing just fine, based on the recent run up of the stock’s value so don’t worry about this lawsuit bringing them down. If you think you have a claim against a company for not doing what they promise and you also think that many others are in the same position as you, call me. We can talk about a class action suit. I can be reached 24 hours a day at 877 Gluck-law.
A woman’s 8 year old daughter found a hypodermic needle in the parking lot of a Target store. When she picked it up, her mother tried to knock it out of her hand. In doing so, the needle stuck her in the right palm. The mother did what I instruct all client’s to do when involved in an incident on someone else’s property: report it!. She reported it to a store employee who indicated in his incident report that the mother seemed worried about the needle. She was tested for various diseases such as hepatitis and HIV and was prescribed medication in case she contracted HIV, although none was detected. The mother claims to have gotten sick from the HIV meds and became bedridden with her husband staying home from work to be with her. The lawyer for the family was willing to settle the case for the medical bills and the husbands wage loss claim in the total amount of $12,000.00. Target refused and a jury returned the largest verdict for a personal injury case in the history of Anderson County, South Carolina, 4.6 million dollars. This case serves as an example of what can happen when an insurance company fails to be reasonable. They were given a chance to do what is right and had the opportunity to compensate the family for bills and wage loss but chose to deny the claim and force the family to go to trial. Well they got their wish. The case went to trial and a jury felt that Target failed to maintain their parking lot in a reasonably safe condition so that used needles aren’t lying on the ground, accessible to children. You never know what a jury will do and this case is a great example of that. The jury clearly wanted to send a message to Target and other property owners that they must make sure things like used needles are not on their property. If you or a loved one is injured on someone else’s property you need an experienced personal injury lawyer by your side. I have been handling these types of cases since 1989 and am available to help you any time. If you have questions about any premises liability claim or any claim involving injury while on someone else’s property, send me an email at email@example.com or call me any time at 877-Gluck-Law. original story
When cars become truly Self Driving, Plaintiff’s lawyers may be out of work on non-catastrophic injury car accident cases.. That is the general consensus among the trial lawyers that I have spoken with. This is an accurate statement for many of us because there is a responsible party in a crash between two self driving vehicles. The problem is, that responsible party is likely going to be a manufacturer of one of the two vehicles or a company providing components for one or the other vehicle. This basically turns what is now a typical auto accident claim upside down. Currently, when a crash occurs and someone is injured, a determination is made as to percentages of fault, among all the drivers, and the injury claim is settled based on those percentages. In order to prove “fault” you simply have to show that the “rules of the road” that a typical driver understands and follows were violated or not followed in a particular situation. The party that failed to follow these well known “rules of the road” would have to pay money damages for injuries they cause. No expert witnesses or inspections of the vehicle are necessary to prove who ran the red light. You simply need eye witness testimony for that, or maybe even a camera with footage of a crash. Once a car becomes “self driving”, the person sitting behind the steering wheel, if he is not in control of the vehicle, is not responsible for damages caused in a crash. To hold a party responsible, you must show they were in “control” of the vehicle when the crash occurred. As an example of this issue, if I owned a retail space but rented it out to someone else to run a yogurt shop and pay me rent, I would not be in “control” of the property so that I would not therefore be responsible for the way the store is maintained if someone slipped and fell in the store. The tenant is responsible if, for example, someone spills a drink on the floor that sits there for too long and you then fall and get hurt from slipping on it. Just like a fall that happens when you are not in “control” of your property, if the vehicle is “self driving” it is just as if you were renting out your car to someone else to drive for you. If you are not in “control” of the driving decisions, and a computer is actually making those decisions for you, then it is the computer and it’s manufacturer, as well as the company that installed it in your car, as well as the car dealership, as well as the car manufacturer, as well as the component manufacturer for your car and for the other car involved that may all be responsible if you are injured in a crash. Experts in accident reconstruction and computer engineering will now be needed, along with a products design and product liability expert, just to bring a successful injury claim. Unless there is a significant injury involved, most lawyers will never dedicate the time and money necessary to prosecute one of these claims. In the near future I can foresee many minor or non incapacitating car crash cases going by the wayside with many lawyers turning them down and not being willing to spend the time or money necessary to prove which product is liable or which machine is responsible for the crash. The machine in this case is a computer and now a jury or judge may have to decide which machine made the mistake. Don’t forget the possibility of a design flaw so we would also need to bring the engineers into the picture. I hope to be retired by the time we all have self driving cars. I give it 15 more years before we are ready to read a newspaper in the front seat while our car drives us from place to place. Until then, keep your eye on the road and your hands on the wheel. If you don’t, and a crash occurs, for at least another twenty years or so, you can reach me 24 hours a day by dialing 877-Gluck-Law.
Copyright © 2021 Robertgluck.com All Rights Reserved.