San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog

The Orange County DA filed felony charges against Jeffrey Woods, 20, of Huntington Beach last week in connection with the death of Danny "Oatie" Oates, 14. Mr. Woods is being charged with vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence when he ran his truck into his victim as he was crossing the street on his bicycle.

Woods' conduct, if not mitigated by any other facts, is truly reprehensible and clearly gross negligence. Woods was driving his truck under the influence of alcohol and drugs while trying to score more drugs during a three-day period. Documents filed with the criminal court show that Woods may have even be texting while driving under the influence at the time of the accident. What was so important that he had to text his contact? Woods needed more drugs.

We commend the Orange County DA for pressing charges against Woods and hope that he is prosecuted and sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. Unfortunately, tragic car accidents happen every day due to drunk or inattentive drivers resulting in serious injury or wrongful death. At times like these, victims' families need the help of experienced, aggressive representation to obtain the maximum recovery for their injuries or loss.

If you or a loved one is the victim of a drunk or inattentive driver, call the Jurewitz Law Group as soon as possible to learn about your rights and remedies. We can help find medical treatment and long-term care assistance while we prosecute your case aggressively.

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

Last week, a man diagnosed with hepatitis A filed a lawsuit against a La Mesa Chipotle restaurant.

The man, Terry Wesley, claims that he became sick on April 24 after eating at the Chipotle restaurant and remains sick to this day.

The lawsuit was filed just as San Diego County health officials reported another hepatitis A case that officials believe may also be linked to the La Mesa restaurant. If that is the case, officials have documented 21 people sickened by food contamination at the restaurant between March 1 and April 22.

Food contamination is a serious problem, particularly common among fast food restaurants and any other restaurant where health preparations are sacrificed in the name of speed and profit. Hepatitis A is a particularly serious disease that attacks the liver and is spread by contamination of food or water through fecal matter.

If you have suffered from food poisoning and incurred a serious infection, such as hepatitis A, please call the Jurewitz Law Group for a free initial consultation. Not only are you entitled to compensation, but your claim draws attention to the poor sanitary conditions at the violating restaurant.

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Food Poisoning

Bookmark:

As reported by the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, former Supreme Court nominee, strict constructionist judge, and tort-reform advocate Robert Bork settled his lawsuit against the Yale Club after he fell while attempting to step onto the dais to speak.

The settlement terms were undisclosed, so little is known about the lawsuit other than those pleadings filed with the Court. However, a review of the complaint filed by Judge Bork's attorneys at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher--who are typically defense counsel and presumably represented Bork because of his high profile--reveals two absolute truths about the case: (1) Regardless of whether the Yale Club was liable for Judge Bork's injuries, Judge Bork was seriously injured and required significant medical care to address his injuries; and (2) Judge Bork's lawsuit embodies many of the tactics and strategies that Judge Bork decried in his tort reform efforts.

Continue reading "Tort Reform Hypocrite Settles Slip and Fall Lawsuit" »

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Premises Liability , Tort Reform

Bookmark:

Earlier today, San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett ordered Starbucks to pay $100 Million to its' California baristas in back tips and baristas that had been wrongly directed to shift supervisors. In addition, Starbucks' shift supervisors were enjoined from sharing in future tips.

Judge Cowett found that the sharing of tips with shift supervisors violated state law. Starbucks called the ruling "unfair" and "beyond all common sense and reason."

The lawsuit started after a La Jolla barista complained about shift supervisors sharing the employee tips left in the front counter tip jar. After filing suit, a class of nearly 100,000 past and present Starbucks baristas was certified.

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Law

Bookmark:

The California Department of Insurance has ordered Allstate Insurance Company, who insures about 10% of all California cars, to reduce their rates by 15.9%.

DOI has insisted that insurers adhere to the key rate factors in determining the appropriate risk that an insured will be involved in an automobile accident: a person's driving record, the number of years behind the wheel, and the number of miles driven per year.

"It was very clear that they were charging too much," said Douglas Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, the Santa Monica-based advocacy group that successfully championed Proposition 103 in 1988. The voter-approved initiative turned insurance into a highly regulated business, similar to power companies and other public utilities.

DOI is also attacking Allstate for excessive charges for homeowners' insurance, which provide resources to pay premises liability claims.

It is anticipated that the rate ruling will force other insurers to reduce their rates as well.

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Premises Liability

Bookmark:

San Diego is a boaters and waterman's paradise. From open ocean sailing to jet-skiing and water-skiing in Mission Bay, San Diegans take to the water when the weather gets warmer.

Not surprisingly then that boating accidents increase at this time of year. Also not surprising is that San Diego is home to two of the most dangerous bodies of water in California for boating accidents (San Diego Harbor and Mission Bay). In a five-year study performed by the California Department of Boating and Waterways, San Diego Harbor and Mission Bay were the third and fourth most dangerous "Coastal Water" area and were both within the top 10 most dangerous bodies of water overall within the State.

In addition, the Department also publishes an annual Boating Safety Report which includes accident data. What we know from these reports is that the vast majority of the accidents involve PWCs (jet-skis, etc.) and open-cockpit motorboats (water-ski boats, etc.). In addition, the majority those involved in these accidents is under 30 years of age. Last the accidents are almost always caused by three factors: excessive speed, operator inattentiveness, and operator inexperience.

If you're going to go out and enjoy San Diego's waters, be sure that you and everyone on your vessel is safe. Look out for other vessels, particularly those operated by young, inexperienced operators and give them wide berth. Avoid areas where these types of operators congregate (De Anza Cove, etc.). Last, make sure that you have insurance (both health and liability) in place to address any type of emergency.

Safe boating.

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Boating Accidents

Bookmark:

Most San Diegans drive with auto insurance. But most are severely under-insured or don't have the right kind of insurance to do them the most good if they are involved in an auto accident.

Unfortunately, our office usually typically has the opportunity to advise clients of their proper insurance needs ONLY after they've been in an accident and it's clear to them they were under-insured. So, please consider this to be a preemptive public safety announcement to all San Diegans.

1. Do Not Purchase Minimum Insurance. The minimum amount of insurance coverage necessary to drive a car in California is bodily injury coverage of $15K/$30K. This means that, in the event that you negligently cause an accident, your insurance carrier will pay all medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering for those you injured up to $15K per person or $30K per accident. If their damages exceed this amount, then you could be personally responsible for the balance. Obviously $15K isn't much money and automobile accident claims can easily exceed this amount, particularly where there is a claim for wrongful death. It is important that you purchase as much bodily injury coverage as you can afford. This is not only important to protect your assets, but, as the next section will make clear, so that you can maximize your under-insured/uninsured motorist coverage.

2. Purchase As Much UM/UIM Insurance Coverage As You Can. Ok, you're responsible. You purchased as much bodily injury coverage as you can. But the other guy, just assume that he is not responsible and is carrying only the minimum coverage--or no coverage at all! That is why you need to maximize your uninsured/under-insured motorist coverage (UM/UIM). UM/UIM allows you to turn to your own insurance to pay for your injuries which exceed the limits of the other driver's insurance policy. However, you can only purchase UM/UIM coverage up to the limits of your bodily injury coverage. So, if your bodily injury coverage is $100K, that is the most UM/UIM coverage you can purchase. UM/UIM is one of the cheapest components of an auto insurance policy. There is no excuse not to have it.

Continue reading "Automobile Insurance for San Diego's Roads: What You Need" »

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Client Service

Bookmark:

Progressive Insurance's slippery and underhanded tactics have been profiled before. See here. Here too.

Now comes Progressive's latest dirty trick: offering personal injury settlements in auto accident cases before victims even get a chance to see a doctor.

Here's how the new strategy works:

Continue reading "San Diegans, Beware! Progressive Insurance's Newest Dirty Trick!" »

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , Client Service , Consumer Fraud

Bookmark:

We've written about Benetta Buell-Wilson before. Earlier this week, the California 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its' ruling that Ms. Wilson was entitled to $82.6 Million after the US Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals should review its' ruling.

Ms. Wilson was originally awarded $370 Million dollars by a San Diego Jury. The verdict was later reduced by the trial court to $102 Million and then to $82.6 Million by the Court of Appeal. However, when given the opportunity to reduce this verdict again, the Court of Appeal declined.

The Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co. is important for several reasons. First, it was the first time that Ford was held responsible for injuries resulting from a Ford Explorer roll-over auto accident. During the trial, Ms. Buell-Wilson's attorneys effectively proved that Ford was aware that the Explorer was dangerously unstable and prone to oversteer leading to rollovers. Ford also knew that in the event of a roll-over, the Explorer's roof was not strong enough to prevent crush. The cost of preventing rollover roof crushes was minimal, yet Ford refused to make he necessary changes. This is oddly reminiscent of prior Ford safety shortcomings; e.g., the Ford Pinto, use of Firestone ATX tires, etc.

Congratulations to Ms. Buell-Wilson. We hope that this latest ruling provides you with peace...after more than a decade of litigation against Ford's lawyers and unlimited bankroll.

UPDATE: Ms. Buell-Wilson is going to continue to wait for justice. Ford has decided to appeal the latest court ruling.

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Car Accidents , New Case Law

Bookmark:

Doctors, like anyone, are not infallible. Every day, thousands of San Diegans put their trust, their bodies, and their health in the hands of doctors. Fortunately, there are many fine and skilled doctors in San Diego. However, that does not prevent incidents of medical malpractice from occurring--some of which result in lifetime injuries or death.

What most people do not realize is that doctors, unlike almost any other profession, are protected by a damages cap. Since 1975, California law has limited non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) to $250,000. Under this law, NO medical malpractice victim's pain and suffering can be compensated more than this amount.

In 1975, the California legislature enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) installing this cap and also other protections for doctors found to have committed malpractice. So, for 33 years the cap has remained $250,000--despite the fact that $250,000 in 1975 dollars is now worth $1,012,500! From January 1975 to January 2008, the annual rate of inflation has been 4.33% and $4.05 in 2008 dollars will buy the same as $1 in 1975.

Why hasn't MICRA kept pace with inflation? One reason is that the legislature failed, and continues to fail, to provide a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for MICRA even though COLAs are included in a variety of laws, contracts, and almost any other long-term financial arrangement.

Continue reading "Injured San Diego Patients Deserve MICRA Reform" »

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Legislation , Medical Malpractice , Tort Reform

Bookmark:

Recently, it was discovered that six cases of Hepatitis C were caused by grossly negligent practices at the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada. Among the cost and safety cutting procedures alleged were directions to staff to use syringes and vials of anesthesia more than once--despite the risk of spreading diseases.

Out of this scandal, Southern Nevadans have discovered a problem that should also concern patients in San Diego--how do patients find out about the doctors treating them?

In California, the state Medical Board does not provide any information about past or pending lawsuits for medical malpractice unless a judgment was entered or settlement reached in excess of $30,000. This makes is it difficult for patients to discovery evidence of poor, although perhaps not negligent, performance by their doctors. Due to the scarlet letter this hangs on the chest of a careless doctor, medical malpractice cases, no matter how legitimate or clear-cut, are litigated tooth and nail through trial.

This is a poor way of sharing information with patients about the doctors treating them. It is believed that 90% of all malpractice claims come from the conduct of 10% of doctors. While these may not be exact figures, they do seem logical. Persons who make mistakes or who cut corners tend to repeat these mistakes over and over. For example, in San Diego, a dentist has been successfully sued four times for substandard care.

Continue reading "San Diego Patients Should Know About Their Doctors" »

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Legislation , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

It is not often that our office reports on the legal happenings of other states. But this time it is important to let San Diegans know about several efforts to cap the percentage of a recovery contingency fee lawyers can receive--and to understand why such limitations are short-sighted and dangerous.

The contingency fee agreement is the primary manner in which average people can hire attorneys to litigate their interests. Under a contingency fee agreement, the client is able to hire an attorney who will work for them for months or sometimes years at a time without receiving payment for services until the attorney actually obtains a monetary settlement or judgment for the client. The more the attorney recovers for the client, the greater the fee he is entitled to receive. Further, if the attorney does not obtain a monetary recovery, the client does not owe the lawyer anything for the legal services provided.

Without the contingency fee arrangement, clients would be forced to hire attorneys solely by paying for legal services by the hour at rates of anywhere from $200 to $350 per hour, in most cases. Most clients, with legitimate cases, could not afford to hire an attorney under an hourly fee arrangement.

Last, the majority of clients--even those who can afford to pay for legal services at an hourly rate--prefer contingency fee arrangements.

Which makes Oregon Initiative 51 all the more dangerous.

Continue reading "San Diego Injury Victims Might Be Affected By Latest Fee Cap Initiatives" »

Posted by Ross Jurewitz | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Legislation , Tort Reform

Bookmark: