Stockton Injury Lawyer Blog

A popular member of the Stanislaus County Bicycling Club died Monday after being struck by a pick-up truck. According to the Modesto Bee, William Foltz, 73, was an easygoing man who "always rode with a smile on his face." Foltz was in the right lane and put his hand out to signal before attempting to cross the left lane. Unfortunately, the lane was not clear and he was hit from behind. The investigation is ongoing, but the driver has not been cited.

Foltz' accident underscores the hazards of bicycling. Despite the prevalence of bicycling on California roadways, many motorists fail to share the road with cyclists. Unfortunately, in car vs. bike accidents, the bicyclist often suffers serious injuries such as broken bones, brain injuries and head trauma.

Some simple safety tips can help reduce your risk of injury. These include:
• Always wear a helmet
• Wear bright colors
• Obey traffic controls
• Ride your bike near the right-hand edge of the road
• Use hand signals when turning or stopping
• Be careful when checking traffic

Although bicyclists need to take precautions, motorists have to do their part and allow bicyclists room to maneuver. As a result of this latest accident, some cyclists are calling for Modesto to enact a "3-foot rule" such as that adopted in other cities requiring drivers yield at least 3 feet to bicyclists on the road.

Continue reading "Modesto Bicycling Accident Ends In Tragedy" »

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a company whose insurer was ordered to pay the full cost of treating an accident victim.

The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in Howell v. Hamilton Meats, will likely have a major impact on almost every personal injury matter in Marin County and all over California, by affecting how medical damages are calculated.

For many years, California courts have unfairly limited a victim's recovery of medical damages to the "discounted amount" paid by the insurance company. The discounted amount is the actual payment amount a hospital is willing to accept from an insurance company in exchange, for example, for business or prompt payment. This amount is often significantly less than the victim's actual medical bills.

In a rare victory for accident victims, in November the state appeals court in San Diego determined that an injured person who has insurance could recover the full cost of treatment from the person responsible for the injury.

In Howell v. Hamilton Meats, a woman - Rebecca Howell - was injured when a truck made an illegal U-turn and hit her car. Her medical bills for surgery and treatment at 2 separate hospitals totaled $190,000, but the hospitals agreed to accept $60,000 from Howell's insurer. In a 3-0 decision, the state appeals court determined that Howell was entitled to the full $190,000, in part because it was her foresight in getting health insurance that allowed for the discount in the first place. The court reasoned that Hamilton Meats shouldn't reap the benefits of Howell's planning.

The California Supreme Court granted review of this decision on March 11.

Continue reading "California Supreme Court To Review Damage Calculations For Accident Victims" »

As President Obama strives to implement health care reform - "tort reform" has become a hot button issue. "Tort reform" typically refers to caps on non-economic punitive damages in lawsuits where individuals have been injured by gross medical malpractice. Tort reform advocates erroneously blame medical malpractice lawsuits for high insurance premiums, causing doctors to flee states without caps and practice "defensive medicine," further increasing health care costs.

However, as medical malpractice victims living in Marin County and throughout California know, the real cost of tort reform is born by those who been seriously injured or harmed by medical negligence. California currently has one of the nation's most restrictive tort reform laws with its 34 year old "cap" of $250,000 on pain and suffering for injured patients, which essentially prevents victim of severe cases of malpractice from going forward in the courts and receiving just compensation.

Further, studies show that many of the tort reformer's arguments are false and based on inaccurate information. According to a November report issued by the American Association for Justice, lawsuits do not drive up insurance premiums. In fact, studies show that jury awards, settlements and administrative costs add up to less than $10 billion a year - less than 0.3% of what the U.S. spends on health care every year.

The costs of defensive medicine are also greatly exaggerated. Recent studies show estimate that defensive medicine at most accounts for 3% of medical spending - and much of what is identified as defensive medicine is not motivated by liability, but simply the desire of physicians to generate more income.

Finally, little correlation exists between malpractice payouts and malpractice premiums. In fact, researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) noted, "increases in malpractice payments made on behalf of physicians do not seem to be the driving force behind increases in premiums." Declining interest rates and investments in the insurance industry drive the rate increases - not malpractice payouts. One study found that insurers artificially raised doctors' premiums and misled the public about the nature of medical negligence claims in order to justify "tort reform."

Continue reading "California Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Not Responsible For High Insurance Premiums" »