Personal Injury

Indiana Supreme Court rules issues an important decision affecting clients with traumatic brain injuries.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:10:00 GMT

By Matt Schad

I have represented a number of clients with traumatic brain injuries and handled million of dollars of settlements on their behalf. Brain injury cases are complex and difficult. Traumatic brain injury (sometimes called “TBI”) are often invisible to the casual, untrained observer because many crash victims are more worried about their painful bodily injuries than memory loss or confusion.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that neuropsychologists can give court opinions on the cause of brain injuries. Bennett, et al v. Richmond (January 31, 2012). Neuropsychology is a specialty field of psychology that focuses on the relationship between brain impairment and behavior in individuals due to head injury. In the past, Indiana appellate courts have restricted legal opinions on head injury to medical doctors. In the Bennett case the Indiana Supreme Court found that a well qualified neuropsychologist had the training and expertise to offer the conclusion that a crash victim had suffered a traumatic brain injury.

I’m very pleased with the decision. We have screened crash victims with head trauma for TBI injuries for many years. It should give us some advantages in TBI legal cases. Those of us who work with brain injured individuals know that neuropsychologists work on the front lines with TBI patients. In fact, many medical doctors overlook the TBI diagnosis. Many of my clients didn’t know that they were demonstrating the classic signs and symptoms of a TBI injury until I talked to them and suggested they ask their doctor about neuropsych testing.

If you have questions about TBI, please feel free to call me or contact your local Traumatic Brain Injury Association.

More ...

Tags: brain injury,TBI,neuropsychology,personal injury,crash,accident

Category: Personal Injury

Category: Automobile Accidents

Opinion: Dogs that Attack Should Be Destroyed

Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:36:00 GMT

Opinion: Dogs that Attack Should Be Destroyed

Over the years I have represented dozens of clients, many of them children, who were victims of dog attacks. All “dog bite” cases are unique and challenging. Recently, one of our clients was terribly disfigured in an attack that was covered by local television and newspaper media. I’m blogging about it because it’s important to her that no one else ever be needlessly savaged, and that this dog in particular is eventually destroyed.

First of all, let me say that I like dogs. I love my own dog. But, I like people more – and I have absolutely no sympathy for vicious dogs or their owners.

Maybe it’s my background growing up on a farm. We had working dogs that protected our herd from stray dogs. If a wild dog was loitering around the farm, we’d chase it away. If it came back, or threatened anyone, we shot it. If one of our own dogs got crazy and ate a chicken, or nipped at the cattle or goats, it would “disappear”. As a child, I remember my dad making the one-way trip to the woods with the “bad” dog and his shotgun, and then walking back alone. Harsh? Perhaps. But fair.

Dog attack cases are not easy from a legal standpoint. A dog owner is not automatically responsible for the damage their animals cause. To win a case, the victim must prove that the dog had “dangerous propensities”, and the dog owner “knew or should have known” about those characteristics. What does that mean? As a practical matter, it is hard to hold owners responsible for dogs that have never acted aggressively or that bite without warning. Legal commentators have called this the “one free bite rule” because an owner can always claim that he had no idea the bite was foreseeable because it had never happened.

Experienced trial lawyers know better. I have taken many depositions where the dog owner initially claimed “my dog has never been aggressive”. As the questioning goes into detail, it’s obvious that the dog was a threat – that it growled, or barked, or chased kids. There are ways to find out about the true nature of a dog. Vets, neighbors, and the mailman can all provide valuable information.

I divide dangerous dogs into two categories – the “nippers” and the “maulers”. Nippers are dogs like shepherds that are sneaky, high strung, or easily startled. They usually get spooked by children or sudden movement. They bite once, and can cause serious damage but are not trying to kill. Sadly, kids are usually on the wrong end of the bite. The maulers are just what they sound like – big, aggressive breeds that attack to kill, and inflict massive damage to children and adults alike. Pit bull mixes are the most common culprits.

My personal opinion is that dogs that bite should be destroyed. I have seen too many clients with physical and emotional scars from attacks. Especially pit bulls and other breeds selectively bred for aggression and fighting. If they bite once they will bite again.

Animals are animals. People are people. When animals are a threat to people – the animal should lose.

More ...

Category: Personal Injury

Category: Dog Bites

Why It's So Hard to Get Cases Wrapped up in December

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:11:00 GMT

There is a difference in reaching a settlement agreement in a case and actually concluding the case. A settlement is an agreement between our client and a defendant (usually an insurance company) about how much the defendant will pay to resolve the case. Many cases settle during a series of phone calls. Others settle from an exchange of written letters. Cases in which a lawsuit have been filed often settle during a mediation conference.

With very few exceptions, most defendant insurance companies won’t simply send a check. All of the attorneys have to prepare and sign release documents, or file papers with the court to dismiss the case. Those arrangements typically take a month or two after the actual agreement.

It’s a paradox that insurance companies want to settle cases at the end of the year but getting the check from them is harder in December. Insurers like to show cases as settled before January 1 because it affects the accounting and books of the company. However, getting the final check requires detailed follow up. During the holidays, it’s hard to juggle all of the phone calls and contacts with adjustors and defense attorneys who are out of the office.

We typically wind up more cases in December than in any month of the year. This year has been no exception. It’s a great feeling to be able to meet with my clients for that final meeting and give them a check before Christmas – it has helped with a lot of presents under the tree over the years. It also helps with the sense of closure as someone who has been through an ordeal with an injury puts the case behind them and looks forward to a new year.

More ...

Category: Personal Injury

Category: Automobile Accidents