San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog

According to a recent study conducted by Insurance.com, 44% of lawyers and judges -- a higher percentage than any other profession -- reported to insurance companies while comparison shopping for auto insurance that they had been involved in a prior driving accident. This is the highest accident rate amongst any profession included in this survey. The findings were published in a list entitled Top 10 Most Dangerous Drivers by Profession.

This is a higher rate of accidents than those reported by interstate truck drivers, financial professionals, waiters, or government workers. According to Insurance.com Vice President Sam Belden, the higher rate of auto accidents months lawyers and judges as well as financial professionals, who came in second, is because these professions demand multitasking, have higher stress, and require professionals to be focused on multiple tasks at the same time. According to Belden, this leads to more accidents.

However, government workers came in third. This profession is not typically known for high-pressure schedules and its workers are typically just as prone to multitasking as lawyers or judges.

The safest drivers, according to the study, were athletes and homemakers. Belden believes that homemakers are very safe drivers because they tend to take your time while driving and use greater caution because they're typically driving with their children in their vehicles. In addition, homemakers and athletes also tend not to drive during rush hour when most car accidents occur.

You can find the complete Insurance.com study here.

Ross Jurewitz is an San Diego personal injury lawyer and the managing attorney of the Jurewitz Law Group, a San Diego law firm dedicated to representing people seriously injured and the families of people killed by the negligence of others. If you or a loved one has been hurt or killed in a San Diego injury accident, please call Mr. Jurewitz at 888-233-5020 for a free consultation.

In addition, if you would like more information to help you or your family, please order your free copy of Mr. Jurewitz's book, The Ten Biggest Mistakes that can Destroy Your California Accident Case. It is free to all California residents.

If you have ever been injured in an accident, you may have experienced one of the new tactics that are being used by insurance companies to improve their bottom line at your expense: the quick, small offer to settle.

San Diego personal injury lawyer Ross Jurewitz looks at this new tactic and cautions injury accident victims to be cautious when deciding "should I accept the insurance company's offer" in this important article. Follow the link for more helpful information.

If you would like more information, please order your free copy of Mr. Jurewitz's book, The Ten Biggest Mistakes that can Destroy Your California Accident Case. It is free to all California residents.

If you have been injured in an accident, you have probably wondered how the insurance company for the other driver, or how your insurance company, will treat you?

San Diego personal injury lawyer Ross Jurewitz will tell you which are the top ten worst insurance companies in America in this important article. Follow the link for more helpful information.

If you would like more information, please order your free copy of Mr. Jurewitz's book, The Ten Biggest Mistakes that can Destroy Your California Accident Case. It is free to all California residents.

If you have ever been injured in an accident, you know that you incur numerous costs and your bills can quickly run out of control. As a result, you may wonder what types of damages you may be entitled to as a result of the other person's negligence and carelessness.

San Diego personal injury lawyer Ross Jurewitz answers this question for you and describes the types of damages available for accident victims in this important article. Follow the link for more helpful information.

If you would like more information, please order your free copy of Mr. Jurewitz's book, The Ten Biggest Mistakes that can Destroy Your California Accident Case. It is free to all California residents.

Who is the independent medical examiner? What is an independent medical examination (IME)?

The answer is that he is the primary witness against most personal injury victims and the IME is a time for the witness to meet, interrogate, and examine the victim in person--giving him more credibility at trial

San Diego injury lawyer Ross Jurewitz answers this question for you and tells of the role of the independent medical examiner in litigation in this important article. Follow the link for more helpful information.

If you would like more information, please order your free copy of Mr. Jurewitz's book, The Ten Biggest Mistakes that can Destroy Your California Accident Case. It is free to all California residents.

An honest and efficient insurance industry is essential for people to manage risks and make sure that valid injury claims from serious accidents are paid quickly. Without a quick and legitimate way of receiving compensation, people do not receive the compensation they deserve when they need it.

Unfortunately, the insurance industry regularly uses questionable tactics to keep from paying legitimate claims. San Diego injury accident lawyer Ross Jurewitz tells of the tactics used by the insurance industry in this news report.

If you have ever had to file a claim with your insurance company or the carrier for someone who has injured you, you've experienced the tactics that the insurance industry uses to force you to accept lowball settlement offers or to deny claims.

In a new article on our law firm website, San Diego, CA personal injury attorney Ross Jurewitz tells you what you can do if the insurance company becomes difficult to work with. You do not want to miss these important tips and read the free report from the American Association for Justice (AAJ).

On November 23, 2009, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District of California (which includes much of San Diego and Orange County) handed down an opinion which helped injured Californians seeking full compensation for injuries caused by others. The opinion, Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., declined to follow the insurance industry's argument that injured people can only collect monies for the reduced amount of their medical bills negotiated by their health insurance companies. The Court upheld the "collateral source rule" that a negligent person must pay for all the harm they caused--including the full amount of medical bills charged by the health care providers--and cannot obtain the benefit obtained by the injured person's health insurance (the "collateral source", i.e., a source of payment other than the negligent person.

The Howell case involved a car vs. truck accident where San Diego County resident Rebecca Howell was hit by a commercial truck owned by Hamilton Meats and driven by their employee. As a result of the auto wreck, Ms. Howell was admitted to the hospital and received subsequent treatment from her doctors in the total amount of over $189,000 which included a fusion of the vertebrae in her neck. At trial, Hamilton Meats admitted liability for causing the accident but disputed the amount of damages that Ms. Hamilton was seeking for compensation (this is very typical). After trial, the Vista, CA jury awarded Ms. Howell nearly $690,000, including her $189,000 in medical bills.

After trial, Hamilton Meat's attorneys sought to reduce the amount of the verdict by arguing that the true amount of the medical bills was $59,000 and not $189,000 after her doctors agreed to accept reduced payments from Ms. Howell's health insurance carrier. Typically, doctors will agree to a reduced payment from a health insurance company so that the total amount paid for care is not the face value of the bill. They do this for a variety of reasons, including having the benefit of being an approved doctor (and receiving a pipeline of patients) and receiving "in-kind" benefits such as equipment and supplies.

The trial court granted the reduction under a line of cases commonly known as Hanif/Nishihama. During the last five years, the insurance companies have convinced the trial courts that this line of cases allowed for post-trial reductions in jury verdicts despite the fact that the collateral source rule clearly stated that injured people can collect the full amount of their medical bills. The collateral source rule had been California law for nearly 40 years before the Howell decision was handed down earlier this week.

The Appellate Court decision reversed the Hanif/Nishihama rulings and clearly states that the collateral source rule is California law.

This is perhaps the most important ruling in favor of injured Californians in the last 5 or 10 years. The insurance companies had used Hanif/Nishihama to ratchet down settlement offers and to reduce jury verdicts. Now, with Howell, injury victims who had the foresight to obtain health insurance prior to their accident will not find themselves penalized for doing so in court.

Read the whole opinion.

The San Diego injury attorneys at the Jurewitz Law Group want to salute and thank the San Diego, CA personal injury lawyers who fought for this victory.

George Washington once said:

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.

Letter of Instructions to the Captains of the Virginia Regiments [July 29, 1759]. The advocates of consumer rights, viewing the resources of defense firms and corporate defendants, can relate to the trepidation felt by the out-numbered and out-gunned Continental Army. Because of that disparity in resources, Consumer Attorneys of California ("CAOC") consolidates the voices of consumer attorneys throughout the state to (1) preserve and protect the constitutional right to trial by jury for all consumers, (2) champion the cause of those who deserve redress for injury to person or property, (3) encourage and promote changes to California law by legislative, initiative or court action, (4) oppose injustice in existing or contemplated legislation, (5) correct harsh, unjust and oppressive legislation or judicial decisions, (6) advance the common law and promote the public good through the civil justice system and concerted efforts to secure safe products, a safe workplace, a clean environment, and quality health care, (7) uphold the honor, integrity and dignity of the legal profession by encouraging mutual support and cooperation among members, (8) promote the highest standards of professional conduct, and (9) inspire excellence in advocacy. This post is a multi-blog effort to inform consumer attorneys about CAOC's value and encourage participation in CAOC through membership.

CAOC works tirelessly to protect or advance those causes of import to consumers and their attorneys in California. Often those efforts, though valuable, receive little fanfare. For example, CAOC recently sponsored SB 510, which affects the re-sale of what are known as "structured settlements," in which victims receive financial compensation over a period of time for medical expenses and basic living needs, as determined by a jury. Before SB 510 was signed by the Governor, Courts expressed frustration at their inability to prevent the sale of structured settlements on terms that might ultimately lead to long-term financial hardship for the victim. Now, SB 510 gives judges the information they need to make a reasoned decision about the propriety of a structured settlement sale.

Measures like CAOC-sponsored SB 510 help protect the most vulnerable members of our society and ask for nothing in return. They exemplify the spirit of CAOC. However, CAOC is only as effective in its mission as its membership allows it to be. When consumer attorneys join the ranks of CAOC, its voice gains in power and clarity. But if consumer advocates sit on the sidelines, hoping to benefit from the work of others, CAOC is stretched thin, and we are all at risk as a result.

Now, consumer advocate bloggers from across the state are combining their voices to call upon each and every lawyer and firm that regularly represents plaintiffs to join CAOC, thereby strengthening the consumer's first line of defense. The blogs participating in this unified call to action are:

• The Complex Litigator (H. Scott Leviant)
• The UCL Practitioner (Kimberly Kralowec)
• Bailey Class Action Daily (Matt Bailey)
• California Employee Rights Blog (James J. Peters)
• An Appeal to Reason (Donna Bader)
• California Personal Injury and Insurance Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
• California Debt Blog (Jonathan G. Stein)
• TrialLawyerTips.com (Mitch Jackson and Lisa Wilson)
• California Injury Blog (John Bisnar)
• San Diego Injury Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
• San Diego Car Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross Jurewitz
• San Diego Injury Accident Lawyer Blog (Ross A. Jurewitz)
• California Nursing Home Abuse Lawyer Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
• San Diego Injury Law Blog (Walton Law Firm LLP)
• California Personal Injury Law Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
• Biker Lawyer Blog (Norman Gregory Fernandez)
• California Credit Law (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)
• Lemon Law Blog (Mark F. Anderson, Carol Brewer & Andy Ogilvie)

Show your support of consumers' rights by joining and supporting CAOC. Together we can make an impact that we cannot make alone.

California judges recently received better guidance for how and when to apply a controversial exception to the collateral source rule, a rule that permits California injury victims to recover the full amount of medical bills incurred following an accident even if paid by a source other than the person who caused the accident (a "collateral source").

The clarification recently came through the editing of citations in the California Judicial Council Judges Benchbook, a reference source for judges hearing California personal injury cases. The edit makes it clear that defendants are not entitled to a post-trial reduction hearing. Rather defendants must meet a specific exception to the collateral source rule for the trial court to consider holding a post-trial reduction hearing.

You can read more about this development, as well as the insurance companies' efforts to misapply California case law, in this post at our San Diego personal injury attorneys website.

Sorry, for borrowing the line from Mike Myers' Linda Richman character from Saturday Night Live, but it fit.

The New York Times recently released an investigative report about the use of so-called independent medical examinations performed on behalf of insurance companies in workers' compensation cases. These examinations are very similar to those performed in California personal injury cases. What the New York Times found was that these examinations were being performed for the sole purpose of protecting the insurance companies' interests, rather than seeking the truth about the victim's injuries.

You can read more about the New York Times' report about independent medical examinations and their application in California personal injury cases here at our San Diego personal injury lawyer website.

The American Association for Justice (AAJ) recently released a report for the public describing the dirty tricks insurance companies use to deny or minimize the claims of injury victims.

The tactics described include denying claims, confusing consumers with insurance policy language and interpretation, and delaying claims for as long as possible.

In a lawsuit filed earlier this week, the City of San Francisco alleged that California insurance companies discriminate against women by charging higher premiums than they charge for men.

The lawsuit argues that the approved health insurance system permits insurance companies to impose "gender ratings" within their pricing policies. Under this system, the City alleges that women pay up to 39% more for health care coverage than men.

The suit pertains to insurance rates for individuals, not group policies.

Currently, ten states outlaw the practice of "gender rating". However, California does not specifically prohibit gender rating.

In response to the lawsuit, spokespeople for the insurance companies stated that their rates are based upon statistics and actuarials that demonstrate that women are more accident-prone and get sick more often than men.

California emergency room doctors have filed a class-action lawsuit against the State of California alleging that California's healthcare system--stretched and burdened by its' thin budget and high demand for services--is about to collapse on itself. The suit comes at a time when hospitals and emergency rooms are closing at alarming numbers, leading to limited emergency care for injured Californians.

The situation is only becoming worse with the State proposing $1.1 billion in cuts to MediCal, California's low-income health payment system.

This is the second lawsuit brought by doctors against the State of California within a year. In the first lawsuit, led by the California Medical Association, doctors were able to obtain an injunction against the State's proposal to cut MediCal reimbursement rates to healthcare providers by 10%. The State instead reduced current reimbursement rates by 1% to 5%.

Emergency room doctors have been particularly hard hit by the healthcare crisis since, unlike other doctors, they cannot chose to turn away low-income patients who rely on MediCal.