Personal Injury Litigation

July 6, 2012

Pre-Litigation Mediation and Settlement in Personal Injury Cases

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Many personal injury victims are surprised to learn that they may settle their claims without needing to file a lawsuit. In fact, many personal injury cases are settled during the beginning stages of the claim (some lawyers would argue this is becoming more and more rare). Early settlement may occur when there is little or no question that the other driver is liable for causing injuries to the personal injury victim, such as when the driver has admitted responsibility. It may also happen when liability is still in question, but the personal injury victim’s injuries are especially severe, or if there is insufficient limits of liability coverage.

During the pre-litigation process, a victim’s personal injury lawyer can verify that the other person has insurance coverage, and also whether the victim’s own insurance policy provides coverage for the accident as well. A victim’s personal injury lawyer can also investigate the facts surrounding the accident. In doing so, he or she may review the police report, interview the witnesses, and inspect the scene of the accident in order to determine how the accident occurred and who is at fault. He or she will most likely review your current and prior medical records, to prove that your injuries stem from the accident and to understand how they relate to any preexisting medical conditions.

Once this has been done, a victim’s personal injury attorney can begin to determine what the victim’s legal claim may be worth financially. This is generally expressed as a range of values because of the uncertainty of settlement negotiations and trials. At some point, the personal injury attorney may propose a pre-suit settlement to the insurance company in an effort to get the compensation the victim is entitled to without having to file a lawsuit in the court system. Generally, the insurance company will respond with either an offer to settle or a request for additional information. That additional information may include a statement from the victim, copies of person’s medical records and tax returns, an independent medical examination and/or any other information the insurance company feels is important in understanding the victim’s case. Once the insurance company has all of the necessary information, it should be in a position to make a settlement offer.

November 7, 2009

ATTORNEY PAUL KRUSE RESPONDS TO EDITORIAL ON TORT REFORM FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAWSUITS

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Below Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse Attorney Paul Kruse responds to an editorial published earlier this fall in the Lebanon Reporter. Mr. Kruse counters several myths relating to tort reform for medical malpractice lawsuits, citing studies supporting his argument that medical malpractice costs represent a small percentage of overall healthcare costs. Furthermore, Mr. Kruse explains why no further tort reform for medical malpractice claims is necessary.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

Your recent editorial on September 17, 2009, authored by Chip Minemyer, titled “Without Tort Reform, There Should Be No Health Overhaul,” was misleading and inaccurate. It was simply an attempt to influence public opinion in favor of big corporations and insurance companies and harpoon injury victims’ claims.

Minemyer starts his column with the statement that litigation reform is an issue “central to improving the cost of healthcare and access to treatment.” In fact, the cost of medical malpractice is actually a tiny percentage of healthcare costs, in part because medical malpractice claims are far less frequent than insurance companies would lead people to believe. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), malpractice costs amount to less than two percent of overall healthcare spending.

President Obama proposed to implement measures to limit the legal rights of severely injured persons as part of the healthcare discussion, apparently as a bargaining chip to reduce Republican opposition to his healthcare reform plan. His medical malpractice reform proposal will hurt patients and dump more cost on taxpayers. It would not eliminate death and injuries but merely shift costs of caring for malpractice victims from perpetrators of malpractice to hard pressed state Medicaid systems, for which state and federal taxpayers share the cost. In fact, according to the insurance industry’s own data, medical malpractice insurance claims and premiums have been trending downward for years.
Continue reading

September 16, 2009

INDIANA FATHER’S EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIMS FOUND INDEPENDENT OF HIS CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE ADULT WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

In a recent decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling from the Marion Circuit Court, holding that an Indiana father who watched his son die after he was prematurely sent home from the hospital without his injuries being properly treated could recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress independently from damages awarded under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute. Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund vs. Gary Patrick, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher Patrick, Deceased, No. 49A02-0807-CV-614 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

A tragic set of circumstances surrounds this case. Back in 2002, a thirty-one year old man was involved in a motor vehicle accident and was transported to St. Mary’s Medical Center in Evansville, Indiana, where he was treated for a broken wrist, broken nose, and abdominal trauma. He was discharged the following day after the accident.

At the time the man lived with his father. The evening of the day the son was released from the hospital, he began vomiting blood. His father called 911, but by the time EMTs arrived, the son had died from an untreated ruptured colon caused by seatbelt trauma during the accident.
Continue reading

September 8, 2009

Indiana Supreme Court Will Take Closer Look at Exclusionary Clause in Farmer’s Personal Liability Policy with Everett Cash Mutual Insurance Company

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer of a case involving Indiana’s workers’ compensation statute and a farmer’s insurance policy which aimed at excluding the farmer’s liability coverage. Everett Cash Mutual Insurance Company vs. Rick Taylor and Katrina Taylor, No. 02A03-0808-CV-386 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), transfer granted (September 3, 2009).

In Everett, a farmer employed an independent contractor business to paint his house, grain bin, and barn. The farmer did not check to see if the business carried workers’ compensation insurance for its employees and in fact they did not. One of the business’ employees came into contact with an electrical wire while painting and was injured.

The employee initially filed a workers’ compensation claim against the independent contractor business, but he discovered the business had no such insurance. He then amended his complaint to name the farmer, alleging the farmer failed to verify whether the independent contractor business had workers’ compensation insurance pursuant to Indiana Code 22-3-2-14(b). At no time did the employee file any tort-related claims against the farmer.
Continue reading

July 26, 2009

New Medicare Laws Impact Personal Injury Cases

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

When handling personal injury claims, plaintiffs’ counsel often address the resolution of subrogation liens, including those asserted by Medicare. Under federal statutes, Medicare is entitled to reimbursement when an injured Medicare recipient receives benefits which are later recovered through a settlement or judgment. New legislation has now given Medicare an effective – and harsh – means of recovering its subrogation lien.In 2007 the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act (the “Act”) was signed into law, placing new and more detailed requirements on liability insurance companies in claims dealing with Medicare recipients. This 2007 Amendment, effective July 1, 2009, is the counterpart to the 2003 Amendment, which focused on plaintiffs and their attorneys. The 2007 Act increases the enforcement power for Medicare reimbursement by extending liability to insurers and adding damages, penalties and fines for noncompliance.
Continue reading

February 23, 2009

The myth about frivolous lawsuits–what insurance companies don’t tell you

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

I have been a personal injury attorney at the law firm Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse for the past 30 years. Insurance companies and their clients have ignored the facts about personal injury litigation and propagate the myth that frivolous claims threaten society. In fact, insurance companies only pay for harm caused by their insured. Claims that have no substance–if they exist–are dismissed by the court or are lost at trial.

I responded to a recent newspaper editorial written under the headline: “Lawyers, spurious lawsuits threaten a potential civic disaster”. Too many newspaper editors have fallen prey to the propaganda campaigns of insurance companies who try to poison the perception of the public–and potential jurors in our community–about the impact of litigation on our society. In fact, our homes, cars, products and lives are safer because personal injury lawyers hold manufacuturers and others accountable for their misconduct.

Attached is my entire letter to the Editor for the Lebanon Reporter:
Continue reading