Statutes of limitation on their surface may seem simple to apply and there are many locations on the web where those who consider that they have legal rights may look to find the state statute of limitations which applies to their claim. Half of those who are likely to look up this information want to find out if the statute of limitations has expired on their case. The other half may want to assure themselves that they have plenty of time left on their statute of limitations so they can attend to matters more pressing matters than the lawsuit, such as seeking out the right medical care and concentrating on their rehabilitation.

This is not an article intended to advise you about the statute of limitations which might be applicable to your case. To the contrary, and much more important for you to learn right now, the purpose of this article is to urge that you not to look up the statute of limitations yourself. Instead you should seek the advice of a competent and knowledgeable lawyer in your state to advise you with regard to the statute of limitations, as well as other statutes providing time sensitive rules that may deprive you of your right to sue long before last day to file suit provided by the statute of limitations. If you want correct information, you will require counsel fully knowledgeable about your state statute of limitations including how it has been interpreted by your state courts of appeals in the volumes of pertinent case law, knowledgeable also about the exceptions to the statutes of limitation, and the other legal theories which can undercut the statute of limitations defense.

We will try to highlight the dangers of your simply looking up the statute of limitations applicable to your type of case and then making decisions on your own that your case is barred and your rights lost, or that you can safely delay filing your complaint to attend to more pressing matters.

As examples, we will explore the two most common statute of limitations questions we receive, the first inquiring about the statute of limitations in auto accident cases, a common question just because there is more accident litigation than any other type of litigation. It is a good question to select also because people might think it so straightforward that anyone should be able to correctly interpret the statute of limitations. The second example is the inquiry about the statute of limitations in medical malpractice litigation, common because in many states the medical and insurance industries have obtained special interest “tort reform” legislation commonly including more restrictive statutes of limitation with “outside limitations,” also permitting us to discuss a “discovery rule.”

There are both federal and state statutes of limitation with most cases arising in the state court systems and so we will pick the 2 year statute of limitation for injuries sustained in auto accidents, and the 1 year discovery rule and 4 year outside rule applicable to medical malpractice cases under California law. Again this is not to provide information for you to rely upon in deciding whether your claim is barred, or conversely to lull you to feel you can safely delay filing suit while you attend to more pressing matters. Rather, it is to demonstrate why you should not attempt to interpret even what might seem to be the most straightforward of statutes of limitation. Leave the interpretation of statutes of limitations to the lawyers. Attorneys will be pleased to speak with you about you case. Just ask for a free case consultation.

So, let’s imagine that through your research you discover that California has a 2 year statute of limitations applicable to auto accidents. What I would hope to demonstrate here is that this is very dangerous information for the injured auto accident victim to rely upon, one who might have been paralyzed, or brained damaged or who might have suffered debilitating internal injuries, catastrophic orthopedic injuries or a limb amputation. He or she may read about the 2 year statute of limitations and be lulled into waiting to file suit, for example to deal with the medical decisions and rehabilitation, or in smaller cases perhaps to see if his injury might resolve.

If he delays even just a few months, the injured auto accident victim can suffer the loss of his case or may lose the right to sue his primary defendant and all or most of what he might have recovered in his case if he had only acted promptly. This may occur, for example, where there are other provisions of law providing much shorter periods than the statute of limitations within which the accident victim must act to preserve his right to sue. One example of such laws existing in many states, including California, is the “government claims provisions.” These requirements apply in a wide variety of auto accident cases, for example where a contributing cause of the accident is a road design defect or failure to properly maintain a roadway. The government claims provisions would also apply if the driver who hit you was a city or county or state employee at the time of the accident, operating his car in the course and scope of his employment.

In each of these cases the injured auto accident victim must file a government claim with the city or county or state within 6 months, a time period obviously much shorter than the 2 year California statute of limitations applicable in auto accident cases.

In the example of the driver who turned out to be a government employee, yes, of course, you might still sue the driver of the car, but if he has a 15/30,000 dollar auto insurance liability policy, that will be of little consolation to the brain damaged or paraplegic plaintiff. On the other hand, if the same man or woman had consulted an appropriately qualified lawyer, the lawyer would have recognized the need to timely file the government claim within 6 months of the date of the accident, and he would have followed the other claims procedures essential to file suit against a public entity. The client could then have obtained full recovery for his injury, his general damages, his pain and suffering, his damages for loss of enjoyment of life, his past and future medical expenses, and full recompense for his past and future earnings losses.

Turning now to the statute of limitations for medical malpractice, and why we urge that you should not attempt to interpret it, apply it, act upon it or fail to act upon it without first obtaining competent legal advice, lets consider California’s 1 year “discovery rule,” and 3 year “outside limitation.” The California medical malpractice statute of limitations provides that actions against health care providers must be filed within 1 year of the date that the malpractice victim discovers or reasonably should have “discovered his cause of action; but even if the cause of action is not discovered, and even where it could not have been discovered, the action is barred after the passing of three years from the date of the malpractice.

Let’s take a couple of real cases, prosecuted by the author of this article. In the first, an expectant mother sought the care of a physician who dispensed to her a sedative as recommended by a well known drug manufacturer. The drug caused the mother no side effects, but her child was born with serious limb defects. The drug was later identified in the press world wide as a potent teratogen, although by its European name, not by the brand name under which it was dispensed in the United States, and so the mother had no idea that it was the drug that caused her daughter’s limb defects. The child was born in 1962, and she showed up at our law offices an adult, 29 years later. In the meantime, the first special California medical malpractice statute of limitations was enacted in 1970, providing a 1 year discovery rule and most significant here, a 4 year outside limitation. The mother hadn’t filed suit during the girl’s minority, and the girl, now a young woman, didn’t file her case within the four years. In 1975 a second version of the malpractice statute was enacted, providing for a three year outside rule statute of limitations. Because the young woman was still unaware of the cause of her birth defects again this three year time passed without her filing suit.

When the woman described her injuries to this author, they seemed to coincide with the injuries caused by the potent teratogen, and so we obtained the list of physicians to whom the drug company supplied the drug. Her mother’s physician, it turned out, was one of them.

But relevant here, the solution to the medical malpractice statute of limitations was to file a complaint alleging that the physician “intentionally concealed” his malpractice from the mother and child, intentional concealment being the antidote to the medical malpractice statute of limitations defense. The author had to fight this out in court, first to defeat the physician’s and drug company’s demurrer to the complaint and then in overcoming their motions of both for summary judgment. But upon succeeding on those motions, the defendants settled the case for $1,500,000.00, which was compensation this young woman would not have received if she had just looked up the California statute of limitations and decided that her case was time-barred.

Now to take a medical malpractice case in which if the clients had considered the 1 year discovery rule they would surely have concluded that they had waited too long to sue. In this case, the author of this article represented 10 clients, all of whom discovered their causes of action against three physicians and a hospital much longer than 1 year prior to the filing of their complaints. Indeed, all readily admitted at their depositions that they had known of their physicians malpractice and their physical harm from the malpractice more than a year prior to coming to this author for representation. This again led the attorneys for the defendant physicians and hospital to file motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the 1 year discovery rule set forth in the California medical malpractice statute of limitations had passed.

But your author had anticipated that the statute of limitations defense would be vigorously asserted, and so we alleged in the complaint that the physicians and hospital were “co-conspirators.” Conspiracy is a legal theory little used by most lawyers, but it has many advantages, including to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations. It is also a relatively easy theory to prove in many cases, simply that one or more people “concurred” to do something that was “wrongful,” and that one of them committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. And if the lawyer can establish just these few facts, then the rule is that the statute of limitations on the substantive causes of action, like medical malpractice, will not “commence to run,” meaning that the time period will not begin to run, until “the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

As was also easily established, two of the three defendant doctors were still involved in providing their patients the same below standard medical care, continuing “overt acts” in furtherance of the conspiracy through the date when your author sued them, and so the Court rejected the defendants motions for summary judgment, permitting the cases to go to trial against all 3 doctors and the hospital. The author tried the cases of 5 of his 10 clients in a single consolidated 4 month medical and hospital malpractice trial, obtaining a 2.9 million dollar jury verdict, including a 1.9 million dollar punitive damage verdict against the hospital.

Again, if these clients had merely considered the text of the California medical malpractice statute of limitations, they likely would have come to the conclusion that the 1 year discovery rule barred them from filing suit. We discuss the subject more fully on our “California statute of limitations”, page, but the purpose there as it is here is not to make you wiser in interpreting statutes of limitations. There are literally volumes upon volumes of case law interpreting the nuances statutes of limitations, their exceptions and defenses.

No, the purpose is the opposite, to warn you not to decide for yourself that your claim is barred by the statute or limitation, or the contrary, that you can safely wait for a year or two before filing your legal action. Statute of limitations analyses, and the related analyses such as those described above, which might lead to a client losing his rights earlier than the date provided by the statute of limitations, or the opposite, providing the exception or otherwise delaying the commencement or extending the statute of limitations, permitting what might have appeared a dead claim to find its day in court, should wisely be deferred to competent, highly experienced and knowledgeable lawyers.

Raymond L. Henke, Principle trial attorney with the California Accident Attorneys & Medical Malpractice Lawyers Group

By: Realtor And Attorney, R. Sebastian Gibson

There is usually little to be gained by attempting to find someone to blame when a calamity such as the current housing crisis occurs. Even if one were to determine exactly what was done wrong, there is little chance that by the time another such crisis is about to occur, that such a determination will be remembered or have any value.

Indeed, what may be about to cause the world’s next depression, is quite unlike what caused the depression of the 1920s.

However, if the depression that is already occurring in the housing market can be prevented from spreading to the general economic market and to the rest of the world, an analysis can be useful if it shows what might be utilized to prevent matters from becoming worse.

First, everyone knows that much of the cause of the current housing crisis, liquidity crisis and sub-prime mess that we are in that is causing real estate sales and prices to plummet, financial institutions to write down billions and which is now causing a general slowdown in the rest of the economies of the world, can be laid to rest at the feet of unwise and improper lending practices. Fixing those lending practices, while useful for the future, won’t prevent this recession from turning into a depression or some other unwise practices from causing a different depression far off into the future.

Who could have prevented such lending practices from causing this economic mess that we find ourselves in? Certainly, a number of entities, from the Federal Government, to State Governments, to Departments of Real Estate in the various states, to regulatory agencies overseeing mortgage lenders, to the banks and lenders themselves and the financial institutions and brokerages who foolishly invested in sub-prime investments themselves.

But as this article is being written this 21st day of January, 2008, stock markets from Asia, to Europe, from China to Latin America and Canada have fallen overnight from 5% to 8% and the U.S. stock market is expect to open on the Tuesday following the Martin Luther King holiday over 500 points below where the Dow closed before the three-day weekend began.

So what is causing the world’s stock markets to tumble. Fear, of course. In this case, the investors fear that the President’s stimulus plan to jump start the U.S. economy will be too little, too late to do anything to prevent a recession. And if the U.S. market goes into a recession, the argument follows, the world’s markets may follow suit.

So if a stimulus plan to put $400 to as much as $1,600 into the hands of most or all U.S. taxpayers will not prevent a recession, what will. The Federal Reserve has as much as already guaranteed that they will reduce the federal funds rate by 50 basis points, but in the week since they made this clear, the market has fallen every day in the U.S.

Some have suggested an unprecedented and immediate lowering of the federal funds rate by 100 basis points. Still, the federal reserve has appeared reluctant to move in such dramatic steps, preferring not to either look panicked or use up one of the few remaining items up it’s sleeve, the federal funds rate and the federal discount rate. Because, once the federal reserve takes its rates down that fast, there won’t be much if anything left in the aspirin bottle, and according to some economists, such moves could make matters worse. Others have argued that the federal government should take over the bond insurers themselves. While that might put out that fire and prevent their situation from harming the market further, the markets around the world still seem headed down with their ships taking on so much water so quickly.

Many are saying that the federal reserve and the federal government are behind the curve. That they are simply reacting and reacting too late, rather than being ahead of the curve and taking steps that will prevent the problems in the financial markets from becoming worse.

Clearly, the federal reserve is acting to put out some pretty nasty fires. Just when you thought the banks and other financial institutions were in enough of a predicament, and that some were just escaping bankruptcy by vast infusions of money from the sovereign funds of other foreign countries, now the risk of bankruptcies or credit rating deterioration of the bond insurers is causing a whole new set of problems.

It may be time for the federal reserve and the federal government to act now as if this country is already in a depression, before it is and solving that mess becomes a bigger problem. One bold solution would be to create a massive jobs and public works program much like was done after the depression of the 1920′s.. This country’s bridges, roads and the rest of its infrastructure is in dire need of repair. So fix the infrastructure and put the country to work doing it.

With so many contractors and laborers who were previously employed in the construction industry out of work, put them to work as well as millions of others in renewing and replacing this country’s infrastructure. Determine how many billions or trillions of dollars it will take to solve one of this country’s biggest problems and solve it by preventing a depression before one takes effect. If we need some money for the project, then by Executive Order or by act of Congress, roll back all of the pork projects Congress has voted for in the last eight years alone, and we may have money to spare. If that’s not enough, pull our troops out of harm’s way. If that’s not enough, stop using tax money to pay for election advertisements. If that’s not enough, get rid of some government agencies once and for all. Because if we don’t stop this spending taxpayer money on pork projects instead of fixing what’s wrong in this country, a lot more things may go wrong. As some would remind us, as bad as things get, they can always get worse.

Sebastian Gibson is the senior lawyer with the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson. He is also a Realtor and the owner of Sebastian Advertising, an advertising agency. More information can be found at his web sites, www.SebastianGibsonLaw.com , www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com , www.SebastianGibsonProperties.com , and www.SebastianAdvertising.com .

As a postscript, the federal reserve lowered both the federal funds rate and the discount rate by 75 basis points on January 22nd, but the Dow still fell 128 points, the Nasdaq 47 points and the S&P fell 14 points.

In the State of California, all occupants in a motor vehicle are required to wear a seatbelt anytime the vehicle is in motion. Billboards up and down our freeways proclaim “Click It Or Ticket”. The fact is, seatbelts save lives! This is no joke and California legislators in the last few years have passed legislation allowing peace officers not only to cite drivers who fail to wear their seatbelts, but to use one’s failure to wear a seat belt as a basis for a traffic stop in the absence of your committing any other offense.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Vehicle Code that require use of a seatbelt when operating or riding in a vehicle, your failure to buckle-up could seriously impact, if not limit your right to recovery in a personal injury action if involved in an accident. As a matter of law, one who is negligent in the operation of their vehicle is liable for all damage caused thereby. It is well known that everyone operating a vehicle on our roadways has an obligation to exercise due care so as to avoid causing an unreasonable risk of harm to others. The breach of this duty constitutes negligence. Little known is the fact that everyone operating a vehicle on our roadways or traveling as a passenger in a vehicle on our roadways has a duty to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of harm to themselves. The breach of this duty constitutes comparative fault and could serve as a bar to recovery in a personal injury action.

If you are involved in an accident through no fault of your own and injured, at some point, the question of whether you were belted will undoubtedly come up. This is especially so if the injuries you suffered are ones that could arguably have been prevented had you been wearing your seatbelt. Defense attorneys are sufficiently savvy to know that while their client may have been the legal cause of the accident complained of, they may not have been the legal cause of the injuries claimed by the plaintiff. If the injured party would not have been injured had he or she been wearing a seatbelt, the fact that the accident was the fault of the defendant is of little to no consequence. The injuries suffered were a direct result of the injured party’s failure to wear his or her seatbelt. That being the case, the injured party is precluded from recovering anything for these injuries. This concept is not new however, with a new set of jury instructions recently adopted which more clearly spell out the law in this regard, jurors now have little difficulty grasping this concept and have, of late, been more apt to deny recovery to a plaintiff where it is shown that their injuries resulted from their own negligence in failing to buckle-up.

At EISENBERG LAW GROUP, we encourage everyone to buckle up and drive safely.

Author Bio:
Mark W. Eisenberg of EISENBERG LAW GROUP represents the interests of injured parties and their families in trials of Automobile Accidents, Construction Site Accidents, Dog Bites, Hospital Negligence, Medical Malpractice, Motorcycle Accidents,Nursing Home Negligence, Personal Injury, Spinal Cord Injuries, Trip/Slip & Fall, Trucking “Big Rig” Accidents, Workplace Injuries, Wrongful Death.

You are required as a matter of law in the State of California to maintain liability insurance with limits of no less than $15,000/$30,000 if you are operating your motor vehicle on public roadways. Your failure to maintain liability insurance could not only impact your ability to register your vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles, it could subject you to significant monetary fines in the event your are cited for driving without insurance. An additional, little known consequence of driving without liability insurance is that you forgo your right to pursue damages for pain and suffering in the event you are involved in an accident caused by another.

A short time ago, California voters passed Proposition 213. This Proposition had the effect of barring one involved in a motor vehicle accident from asserting a claim for general damages (pain, suffering, emotional distress and loss of quality of life), if that individual was driving without insurance at the time of the accident. Proposition 213 has no effect upon one’s right to assert a claim for special damages (medical expenses, loss of earnings, and property damage).

The consequences of Proposition 213 are significant for anyone involved in a serious accident. If you are driving uninsured and involved in an accident caused by another your right to recovery in a personal injury action will be limited. Perhaps this point is best illustrated by way of example. First, lets consider Deborah, a 23-year old woman who inadvertently allowed her insurance to lapse and who was involved in a head-on collision after the operator of an approaching vehicle lost control and crossed the center median directly into her lane of traffic. Deborah suffered significant injuries including facial lacerations resulting in permanent scarring, a crush injury to her right ankle that required open reduction internal fixation with instrumentation that left her with a permanent limp, and a non-displaced fracture of her right wrist which left her with continuing pain. Proposition 213 allowed Deborah to recover the cost of her medical expenses including the surgeries she required due to the severity of her injuries. Deborah was also permitted to recover the $19,000 in loss of earnings she experienced by virtue of being out of work for 7-months due to her injuries and need for rehabilitation. Deborah was also permitted to recover the cost of repairing her vehicle which sustained significant damage in the accident. Deborah however, was barred from recovering anything for her pain and suffering. She was also barred from recovering anything for the shame she has had to endure due to the facial scarring she was left with. Further, she was barred from recovering anything for the fact that her ankle injury left her unable to partake in many of the activities she enjoyed before (e.g. snow boarding, dancing, surfing, etc.). These claims, in Deborah’s case, had significant value however, the fact that she was uninsured at the time of the accident precluded her recovery.

Next, lets consider Amy, a 31-year old woman who too was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident and who, like Deborah, was uninsured at the time. In Amy’s case, she was stopped at an intersection when rear-ended by another vehicle operated by a distracted driver who failed to recognize that traffic in his lane had stopped. The impact to the rear of Amy’s vehicle was significant. By all accounts, the distracted driver was traveling somewhere between 45-50 mph at the time of impact. When struck, Amy’s body was violently forced up against her seat back. The force of impact however, was so significant that in the process, Amy’s vehicle was pushed forward into the rear of the vehicle before her. This second impact forced Amy’s body forward directly into her steering wheel. Amy’s vehicle was older and did not come equipped with airbags. The injuries sustained by Amy were, but for a whiplash injury, all internal but not initially believed to be significant. They were however, in the opinion of her physicians, sufficiently significant such that they would likely preclude her from having any children in the future. Amy’s medical expenses were covered however, Proposition 213 barred her from recovering anything for her claimed inability to conceive.

If nothing else, these two examples make clear that the consequences of driving without insurance can be significant if involved in an accident. If driving without insurance and you are the cause of an accident, you could be personally liable for all of the damages (general and special) suffered by anyone injured as a result of your negligence. It is therefore imperative that you maintain an active policy of liability insurance anytime you are driving on public roadways.

Author Bio:
Mark W.Eisenberg of EISENBERG LAW GROUP represents the interests of injured parties and their families in trials of Hospital Negligence, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Trip/Slip & Fall, Pharmacy Malpractice, Wrongful Death.

Many who confront the legal system for the first time, voluntarily or
involuntarily, are faced with having to decide the forum in which their
dispute will be resolved. In some instances, the forum in which a
dispute will be resolved has been pre-selected by the parties however,
more often than not, litigants will make their forum selection only
after a dispute has actually arisen. It is therefore important to have
an understanding of the difference between mediation, arbitration and
trial and the benefits and drawbacks of each. Often times, the forum
selected will dictate how quickly and effectively the dispute is
resolved.

Mediation is a voluntary process wherein two or more parties to a dispute
try to resolve their differences with the assistance of a neutral, disinterested
third party such as an attorney or retired judge. In most instances, the cost
of the mediator is shared equally however, this is not always the case, especially where one party has an interest in seeing the matter resolve and offers to pay for the mediation in order to entice the other party to attend and partake. These days, there are numerous private mediation centers including, but not limited to, at least in the Southern California area, AAA, JAMS, Judicate West, and IVAMS. The cost of retaining a mediator to assist in resolving your dispute will vary depending on such factors as the experience level of the mediator, how busy he or she may be, the nature of your dispute, the complexity of the issues presented, and the number of involved parties. Most private mediation centers bill for their mediator’s time on an hourly basis however, others bill a flat fee for a half or full day.

Mediation is not, like arbitration or trial, adversarial in nature. As
such, parties to a dispute can mediate their differences without
counsel. Anything said during mediation is inadmissible in court. Thus,
it is not uncommon to see parties who partake in a mediation sitting
together in a conference room and, with the assistance of the mediator,
working toward identifying the contested issues and then brain storming
to resolve them. Mediation is a give and take process where there is no
declared winner and no declared loser. For mediation to be successful,
each side must give up something. Mediation is non-binding unless the
parties agree to be bound by whatever result is achieved. Mediation is
favored and recommended in cases involving neighborly disputes, family
disputes, or where parties to a lawsuit involving a claim for monetary
damages believe that with the intervention of a neutral third party, a
settlement can be achieved. Mediation is often the easiest and most
cost effective way to resolve disputes. The major drawback to mediation
is that if no resolution is achieved, the other side will, by virtue of
your disclosures in mediation, have a better feel for what theories or
claims (and strengths and weaknesses thereof) you might proffer in
litigation.

Arbitration differs little from a bench trial (a trial in which the judge serves
as trier of fact as opposed to a jury fulfilling that role). Arbitration
may be binding or non-binding. Binding arbitration is usually by
agreement of the parties with each expressing, in a writing, a
willingness and commitment to be bound by whatever decision the
arbitrator may reach. Non-binding arbitration affords the losing party
the opportunity to seek a trial de novo (a trial on the merits without
regard to the arbitrator’s findings) however, there are often penalties
imposed on the party requesting the trial de novo if he or she does not
achieve a better result in trial than achieved in arbitration. Private
organizations like AAA, JAMS, Judicate West, and IVAMS similarly offer
arbitration services. The cost is similarly based on an hourly rate or
half or full-day basis.

In advance of arbitration, with all sides usually represented by
counsel because arbitration is an adversarial proceeding, the
arbitrator will be provided briefs detailing the positions, arguments
and demands of each side. The rules of evidence in arbitration
proceedings are quite liberal. As such, documents and other writings
that might be excluded from evidence in a trial will be received and
considered in arbitration. Arbitration will proceed in whatever fashion
the parties desire. This may mean evidence is introduced through the
admission of exhibits and by way of live or recorded testimony or
simply by way of offer of proof (usually an attorney explaining what
the evidence is). The proceeding is much more formal that a mediation
and, as above, is adversarial in nature. Once all the evidence is
received, the arbitrator will usually take the matter under submission
and render an opinion and/or issue an award shortly thereafter. This
opinion or award is final and may only, under very limited
circumstances, be challenged or appealed.

Arbitration proceedings are usually considerably shorter than a trial
and will often be less expensive though that is not always the case.
The major drawback to arbitration is that you have trusted the outcome
of your case to a single trier of fact giving up your right to a jury.
This may be fine in some cases however, where passion and prejudice may
play a role in how the case is decided, it may be advantageous to you,
depending on which side of the case you are on, to try the case to a
jury of twelve.

Trial is what we most frequently see on TV. It is the subject of
virtually every hit crime drama of our time from “LA Law” to “Boston
Legal” to “Law & Order”. In the absence of a plea agreement, trial
is where virtually all criminal cases are adjudicated. In the civil
arena, trials are less frequent. In fact, most, upward of 90%-95% of
all litigated civil disputes settle in advance of trial. Trial is risky
as there is no way to tell what a jury (should you chose to proceed by
way of jury trial) will do with a case. Simple things such as demeanor,
appearance, accent, etc. can have a dramatic effect on how a jury views
a case. If there is anything certain about a jury trial, it is the
uncertainty of the outcome. For that reason, at EISENBERG LAW GROUP we
work hard to resolve disputes before trial. This is not to suggest that
we at EISENBERG LAW GROUP avoid or shy away from trial. Quite the
opposite! Messrs. Day and Eisenberg have over 30-years combined trial
experience and a fabulously successful track record for favorable
outcomes. Trials however, are expensive and carry with them not only
the uncertainly referenced, but the risk of appeal which, at present,
can tie a matter up for 2 ½ years. In addition, trials can be long and
drawn out. Many judges only hold trial 3-days a week which means a
5-day trial with jury selection and deliberation can last 2-weeks or
more. For these reasons, we at EISENBERG LAW GROUP consider use of all
available forums for resolving your dispute placing your interests
above all else.

Author Bio:
Hospital Negligence, Nursing Home Negligence, Personal Injury, Spinal Cord Injuries, Trip/Slip & Fall, Workplace Injuries.

In California, like most states, you are required to carry liability
insurance on your vehicle if you plan on operating it on public
thoroughfares. At present, the minimum liability coverage permitted by
law is $15,000/$30,000. The $15,000 figure is a per injured party sum
while the $30,000 figure is an aggregate sum meant to provide coverage
to two or more injured persons. Liability insurance is available in
higher amounts such as $30,000/$60,000, $100,000/$300,000 and
$250,000/$500,000. The cost of increasing your limits from
$100,000/$300,000 to $250,000/$500,000, for example, is relatively
slight compared with the added protection it affords you in the event
of a loss. This is especially true given the skyrocketing cost of
health care.

Liability insurance is coverage you are required to obtain to protect
others on the road from any act of negligence by you. It DOES NOT
afford you, as the operator of the vehicle, any coverage whatsoever in
the event you are at fault for the accident in which you are injured.
Only medical payments coverage (often available in limits of $1000 and
$5000) will provide you protection in the event your injuries stem from
your own negligence. What happens however, if you are not at fault for
an accident in which you are injured, perhaps seriously, and the
responsible party is either uninsured or under-insured? The answer is
simple, hope and pray you have enough UM/UIM coverage.

Most never appreciate the significance of UM/UIM coverage, the benefits
it affords them or the import of maintaining high UM/UIM limits until
after becoming involved in an accident. Why is it you would feel
compelled to carry liability coverage with $250,000/$500,000 limits to
protect others, yet feel it appropriate to maintain UM/UIM limits of
only $15,000/$30,000 to protect yourself? While high liability limits
may insure that your personal assets are sufficiently protected in the
event you are at fault in injuring another in an accident, what happens
to your assets when you are seriously injured as a result of an
uninsured or under-insured driver’s negligence and either do not have
health insurance, have insufficient health insurance, and no long-term
care coverage? Stated simply, your assets are exposed!

If you are injured as a result of the actions of an uninsured or
under-insured driver, your UM/UIM coverage will cover you. In instances
where the at-fault driver was uninsured, your UM coverage kicks in
immediately. In instances where the at-fault driver was under-insured
(with liability coverage insufficient to compensate you for your
injuries), your UIM coverage kicks in after his payment of policy
limits and only to the extent your UIM limits exceed his liability
limits. For example, if the under-insured at-fault driver maintained a
policy of insurance with $15,000/$30,000 in liability coverage and your
injuries had a value of $100,000, undoubtedly, his carrier would tender
his policy limits to you. If you have UIM coverage with limits of
$100,000/$300,000, the $15,000 you received from the at-fault
under-insured driver is deducted from the $100,000 leaving you $85,000
in UIM coverage; an amount sufficient, with the $15,000 already
received, to fully compensate you for your injuries. If however, you
have UIM coverage with limits of $15,000/$30,000 and already received
$15,000 from the at-fault uninsured driver, YOU HAVE NO UIM coverage
available.

The example in the preceding paragraph illustrates the importance of
maintaining high UM/UIM limits. Often times, we see accident victims
who have only catastrophic health insurance policies (policies with
huge deductibles) or policies with benefit limitations. Rarely do we
see accident victims who had the foresight to secure long-term care
coverage. The absence of healthcare insurance, insurance limitations
and no long-term care coverage could prove financially disastrous to
anyone with insufficient levels of UM/UIM coverage.

At EISENBERG LAW GROUP, we advise all our clients to maintain the
highest level of UM/UIM coverage possible. The cost of UM/UIM coverage
is considerably less than liability insurance but as important, if not
more important, to you. We would encourage you to review your
automobile policies to determine your UM/UIM coverage and increase your
limits if you believe them too low. We would also encourage you to
obtain and/or increase you med-pay coverage as well. Like UM/UIM
coverage, med-pay coverage is considerably less costly than other forms
of coverage available to you. Finally, to the extent you are a
homeowner and/or financially able, we would encourage you to maintain a
liability umbrella (especially if you have young driver’s in your
family operating vehicles on your policy), to protect your home and
other assets in the event of an at-fault loss.

EISENBERG LAW GROUP is not an insurance agency, insurance broker or
insurance company and does not offer insurance advice. Please consult
your insurance specialist for advice on all your insurance needs and
any concerns you may have with any policies of insurance you maintain
at this time.

Author Bio:
Mark W. Eisenberg of EISENBERG LAW GROUP represents the interests of injured parties and their families in trials of Automobile Accidents, Hospital Negligence, Motorcycle Accidents,Trucking “Big Rig” Accidents,Spinal Cord Injuries.

Unlike other types of injury cases, one claiming to have been seriously
injured as a result of a healthcare provider’s negligence will rarely
receive full compensation for their injury. This is because California,
long before President Bush’s call for nationwide tort reform in the
area of medical malpractice, enacted legislation limiting your recovery
against medical providers.

California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act or “MICRA” was
enacted in 1975 by the California Legislature in an effort to control
skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums. MICRA’s
provisions, found at various sections of the Civil Code, Code of Civil
Procedure and Business Professions Code, was the Legislature’s
most ambitious tort reform measure of its time. While purportedly
designed to make healthcare more readily available and affordable, the
effect of this legislation over time has not only been to deprive
Californians quality medical care, but to deny them fair recovery in
the event of malpractice.

Perhaps the most significant provision of MICRA is Code of Civil Procedure
section 3333.2 which limits awards of pain and suffering in medical
malpractice actions to $250,000. Over the last decade there has been
considerable debate about this limitation in that it was established more
than 30-years ago and has never once been increased. When adjusted
for inflation, this $250,000 would equal roughly $864,000 today, however,
MICRA, when enacted, did not contain any provisions that allowed for
increases of the $250,000 cap to account for inflation. It would take
therefore take legislative action and approval by our governor before
this limitation were raised.

Many clients at EISENBERG LAW GROUP have been victims of
medical malpracticeand, as a result, have been rendered quadriplegics,
paraplegics, or otherwise left wheelchair bound and/or brain injured.
Notwithstanding the nature and extent of their injuries and the
dramatic effect their injuries have had upon their lives and the lives
of their loved ones (often responsible for their day-to-day care),
their recovery for pain and suffering has been limited by law to
$250,000. There is no limitation in California on the recovery of
special damages (e.g. medical expenses, loss of earnings, etc.) in a
medical malpractice action however, MICRA does permit a medical
provider, in the event of an adverse judgment, to make periodic
payments on any monetary award over $50,000. [Code of Civil Procedure
section 667.7.] Naturally, this can result in a delay in compensation
to the patient victim.

At EISENBERG LAW GROUP we not only work to achieve the best results and
largest recovery for our malpractice clients, we also employ experts in
rehabilitation, life care planning, economics and structured
settlements to insure that their settlements and awards, even in the
face of legislatively mandated recovery limitations, are sufficient to
provide for their medical needs into the future.

Mark W. Eisenberg of EISENBERG LAW GROUP represents the interests of injured parties and their families in trials of Automobile Motorcycle Trucking Accidents, Medical Malpractice, Nursing Home Negligence, Personal Injury, Pharmacy Malpractice, Premises Liability.