Atlanta, Georgia Personal Injury Lawyer
Michigan bill would let motorists lower their auto insurance by choosing less medical coverage
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080429/mi_auto_insurance.html?.v=1&printer=1
Associated Press Writer David Eggert write today that some Michigan lawmakers are backing legislation that would let motorists save up to 16 percent on their auto insurance by choosing lower medical insurance coverage. Michigan is the only state to require unlimited personal injury protection benefits, which policyholders pay for through a $123 annual fee per vehicle.
$10 a month isn’t a bad amount of insurance to have unlimited medical coverage in the event of a catastrophic car wreck. However, legislation was introduced last week that would let motorists choose medical insurance coverage worth between $50,000 and $400,000, or continue paying for unlimited coverage through the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, a fund that helps supports seriously injured accident victims.
Insurance officials argue that 95% of all medical claims stemming from auto accidents are for less than $50,000. Of course, if you are among the 5% that have serious injuries and no coverage, you can lose everything.
Michigan residents would end up footing the bill when motorists with too little medical coverage are hurt in serious car accidents. However, the insurance industry would benefit as these higher costs are shifted to patients' families, health care insurers and ultimately, taxpayers.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080429/mi_auto_insurance.html?.v=1&printer=1
Associated Press Writer David Eggert write today that some Michigan lawmakers are backing legislation that would let motorists save up to 16 percent on their auto insurance by choosing lower medical insurance coverage. Michigan is the only state to require unlimited personal injury protection benefits, which policyholders pay for through a $123 annual fee per vehicle.
$10 a month isn’t a bad amount of insurance to have unlimited medical coverage in the event of a catastrophic car wreck. However, legislation was introduced last week that would let motorists choose medical insurance coverage worth between $50,000 and $400,000, or continue paying for unlimited coverage through the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, a fund that helps supports seriously injured accident victims.
Insurance officials argue that 95% of all medical claims stemming from auto accidents are for less than $50,000. Of course, if you are among the 5% that have serious injuries and no coverage, you can lose everything.
Michigan residents would end up footing the bill when motorists with too little medical coverage are hurt in serious car accidents. However, the insurance industry would benefit as these higher costs are shifted to patients' families, health care insurers and ultimately, taxpayers.
Labels: car accidents, damages, insurance
CNN
JACKSON, Missouri (March 29) - Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq. The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.
"Who Needs The Money More?"
Debbie Shank, 52, suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident in 2000. The Wal-Mart employee received about $470,000 from the retailer's health plan for medical expenses, but the company has sued to get the payout back.
Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.
It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.
Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.
Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.
Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.
The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.
The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.
"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.
In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.
Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.
"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.
The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.
Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.
"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.
The family's attorney agrees.
"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.
"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."
Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.
Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.
Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.
Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.
For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."
"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her what's going on because it will just upset her.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/wal-mart-sues-disabled-ex-employee/20080329083609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
JACKSON, Missouri (March 29) - Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq. The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.
"Who Needs The Money More?"
Debbie Shank, 52, suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident in 2000. The Wal-Mart employee received about $470,000 from the retailer's health plan for medical expenses, but the company has sued to get the payout back.
Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.
It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.
Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.
Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.
Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.
The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.
"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.
The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.
"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.
In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.
Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.
"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.
The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.
Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.
"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.
The family's attorney agrees.
"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.
"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."
Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.
Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.
Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.
Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.
For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."
"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her what's going on because it will just upset her.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/wal-mart-sues-disabled-ex-employee/20080329083609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Labels: avoiding personal injury, brain, damages, money
Our firm has had two premises liability verdicts in February. In the first, a United States District Court jury returned a verdict for $340,000 in a negligent security case. A truck driver parked his truck at a local truck stop. The truck stop had only 1 security guard on duty despite knowing of prior violent crimes. The client was hit on the back of the head and suffered a concussion (a mild brain injury) and a herniated disc in his neck. The plaintiff later had surgery to have his spine fused.
In the second, a Canadian family was staying at a local hotel. The water temperature in the shower was allowed to reach scalding levels and the father suffered a second degree burn which caused a scar on his chest. Attorney Dwayne Adams presented evidence showing that the Defendant had destroyed evidence relating to maintenance records. An expert showed how the boiler was 35 years old and the hotel knew that it had frequently hit unsafe temperatures. The Dekalb County jury returned a verdict of $75,000 for pain and suffering.
In the second, a Canadian family was staying at a local hotel. The water temperature in the shower was allowed to reach scalding levels and the father suffered a second degree burn which caused a scar on his chest. Attorney Dwayne Adams presented evidence showing that the Defendant had destroyed evidence relating to maintenance records. An expert showed how the boiler was 35 years old and the hotel knew that it had frequently hit unsafe temperatures. The Dekalb County jury returned a verdict of $75,000 for pain and suffering.
Labels: avoiding personal injury, brain, damages, pain, spine, suffering, trial, verdict
Archives
February 2007 April 2008 May 2008
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
