Having been involved in handling these types of cases for so many years, this question is at the heart of many discussions I've had. The answer is as simple as the problem is sad and it all boils down to one word: "PROFIT."
Hospitals make a larger profit when a baby is delivered vaginally than when it's delivered by c-section. In fact, at many hospitals, they lose money on c-sections. The problem is, often times, as part of a child's delivery, they may get stuck in the birth canal, or have problems that are depriving them of oxygen. The doctors know that c-sections are usually the best response to a child that is in danger. The problem is, because the hospital they work at is focusing on the economic bottom line, the doctors are often under pressure to try and avoid doing a c-section. While the doctors leave the baby in distress and hope a vaginal delivery will work, they wait while the baby can't breathe and is exposed to severe brain damage that can lead to cerebral palsy. Or if they are stuck in the birth canal, they are vulnerable to a severe arm/shoulder injuries if the doctor pulls too hard on their arm.
You can learn more about this topic by going to http://ostrofflaw.com/pennsylvania-birth-injury-lawyers.htm
Monday, March 9, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Case of the Week
Facts: Our client was severely injured by a drunk driver. In the collision, his clavicle was crushed and required multiple surgeries. The intoxicated driver, who was at fault for this accident, had only $15,000 liability coverage, which are the benefits we would pursue against a driver who was at fault for an accident. Fortunately for our client, the car he was driving had very substantial under-insured motorist benefits totaling $500,000. This means that if the value of this case is worth in excess of the insurance on the vehicle at fault, he can go back to his company for what are known as under-insured motorist benefits (UIM) which insured you against being injured by someone with inadequate insurance. It was clear that the value of our client’s case was worth in excess of the $500,000 in insurance on his policy but his company refused to offer the full amount.
Once an insurance company is on notice of a UIM claim and a claimant attorney’s makes it clear that the case is worth the total amount of that insurance or more, the insurance company has a responsibility to pay those benefits within a reasonable period of time. If the company fails to do this and a verdict or arbitration award is received in excess of the available insurance, the claimant can actually receive the full amount of the award or verdict rather than the limited insurance.
In this case, Jon Ostroff obtained an arbitration award on behalf of his client of $1.3 million dollars. Mr. Ostroff’s client immediately received the full $500,000 policy limit or received it within 30 days, but within the next six months, the claimant received most of the $800,000 that was awarded to him in excess of the $500,000 available under the applicable policy. Mr. Ostroff’s client was very tempted to accept a $350,000 offer from the insurance company made just a day or two before the arbitration commenced. Mr. Ostroff strongly urged his client to refrain from accepting that amount as he was confident that they could receive an arbitration award well in excess of the $500,000 policy limits and potentially receive more than that amount. Luckily, Mr. Ostroff’s client took Mr. Ostroff’s advice, and agreed to present the case at arbitration where they received an amount that was multiples of the amount offered prior to arbitration.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Case of the Week
Facts: Our client was severely injured by a drunk driver. In the collision, his clavicle was crushed and required multiple surgeries. The intoxicated driver, who was at fault for this accident, had only $15,000 liability coverage, which are the benefits we would pursue against a driver who was at fault for an accident. Fortunately for our client, the car he was driving had very substantial under-insured motorist benefits totaling $500,000. This means that if the value of this case is worth in excess of the insurance on the vehicle at fault, he can go back to his company for what are known as under-insured motorist benefits (UIM) which insured you against being injured by someone with inadequate insurance. It was clear that the value of our client’s case was worth in excess of the $500,000 in insurance on his policy but his company refused to offer the full amount.
Once an insurance company is on notice of a UIM claim and a claimant attorney’s makes it clear that the case is worth the total amount of that insurance or more, the insurance company has a responsibility to pay those benefits within a reasonable period of time. If the company fails to do this and a verdict or arbitration award is received in excess of the available insurance, the claimant can actually receive the full amount of the award or verdict rather than the limited insurance.
In this case, Jon Ostroff obtained an arbitration award on behalf of his client of $1.3 million dollars. Mr. Ostroff’s client immediately received the full $500,000 policy limit or received it within 30 days, but within the next six months, the claimant received most of the $800,000 that was awarded to him in excess of the $500,000 available under the applicable policy. Mr. Ostroff’s client was very tempted to accept a $350,000 offer from the insurance company made just a day or two before the arbitration commenced. Mr. Ostroff strongly urged his client to refrain from accepting that amount as he was confident that they could receive an arbitration award well in excess of the $500,000 policy limits and potentially receive more than that amount. Luckily, Mr. Ostroff’s client took Mr. Ostroff’s advice, and agreed to present the case at arbitration where they received an amount that was multiples of the amount offered prior to arbitration.
Limitted Tort Insurance Policy
Question:
I suffered from injuries in an automobile accident caused by another person and I selected the limited tort option on my auto insurance policy. I’ve already spoken with the insurance adjuster on the other person’s car and he tells me because I selected limited tort, I cannot make a claim for my pain and suffering. Is this correct?
Answer:
Remember that insurance adjusters are employed by companies who profit from scaring you away from making a claim where they would otherwise be responsible for paying you. Many of those who contact us with a limited tort policy are under the impression that they are not able to make a recovery and we find otherwise. Sometimes it’s a matter of your injury being serious enough that you fall into what’s called the “serious injury exception” that applies to limited tort. Other times there are automatic exceptions such as if you were not in a regular private passenger vehicle when the accident occurred or if you were injured by a drunk driver. Finally, even if your injury was not serious when you first attempted to make a claim with the insurance company, perhaps it has become more serious because it has not improved and you’re still receiving medical treatment after many months.
Whatever the case may be, it is always worth your while to contact our law office to see if you’re entitled to a recovery, even if you chose the limited tort option. Many clients are surprised to learn we are able to help them when they have been told otherwise by their insurance adjuster or even other law firms. It’s worth picking up the phone to make one simple call to our office and in a short while, we can provide you with our expert opinion as to whether or not we can help you.
I suffered from injuries in an automobile accident caused by another person and I selected the limited tort option on my auto insurance policy. I’ve already spoken with the insurance adjuster on the other person’s car and he tells me because I selected limited tort, I cannot make a claim for my pain and suffering. Is this correct?
Answer:
Remember that insurance adjusters are employed by companies who profit from scaring you away from making a claim where they would otherwise be responsible for paying you. Many of those who contact us with a limited tort policy are under the impression that they are not able to make a recovery and we find otherwise. Sometimes it’s a matter of your injury being serious enough that you fall into what’s called the “serious injury exception” that applies to limited tort. Other times there are automatic exceptions such as if you were not in a regular private passenger vehicle when the accident occurred or if you were injured by a drunk driver. Finally, even if your injury was not serious when you first attempted to make a claim with the insurance company, perhaps it has become more serious because it has not improved and you’re still receiving medical treatment after many months.
Whatever the case may be, it is always worth your while to contact our law office to see if you’re entitled to a recovery, even if you chose the limited tort option. Many clients are surprised to learn we are able to help them when they have been told otherwise by their insurance adjuster or even other law firms. It’s worth picking up the phone to make one simple call to our office and in a short while, we can provide you with our expert opinion as to whether or not we can help you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
