Personal Injury Law Blogs

How no win no fee changed personal injury claims

What existed before no win no fee personal injury claims?

Before the arrival of no win no fee cases lawyers were paid in one of two ways – either directly by their client, or from the government if the person they were representing was entitled to legal aid. However, to receive legal aid you had to meet certain conditions, and not all costs would necessarily be covered. This meant many people that weren’t entitled to legal aid but didn’t have the means to pay for a lawyer themselves often couldn’t afford to pursue a personal injury claim even when they had a strong case.

When did no win no fee personal injury claims become available?

1995 saw no win no fee deals allowed for a range of court cases, but it wasn’t until 1998 that personal injury claims could be arranged on this basis. Supporters of the change argued that no win no fee arrangements allowed justice for everyone not just the richest, while opponents predicted the UK would develop a compensation culture similar to America’s.

1999 – losing side pays personal injury claim fees

The Access to Justice Act was passed in 1999, allowing judges to order the losing party to pay the winning sides fees. The final barrier that was stopping people from making a personal injury claim was thus removed. Sections of the media claimed that people were making frivolous claims, and soon the idea that Britain was a nation of compensation claimers began to take hold of the public’s imagination.

Filtering out the bogus personal injury claims

It is great rhetoric to suggest that the introduction of no win no fee personal injury claims have caused a rise in the number of compensation claims, but the facts say something entirely different. Data from the Compensation Recovery Unit shows that the number of people claiming may rise from year to year, but it can also dramatically fall – there is no trend to suggest that the change in the law is making more people claim.

Furthermore, lawyers make their money by winning– this means that they weed out the illegitimate cases so only those that have really been injured as a result of someone else’s negligence can make a personal injury claim.

The future of personal injury claims

In March 2011 the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke announced that he intended to change no win no fee arrangements. Stripping the rights of people to access no win no fee arrangements could once again see personal injury claims being a preserve of the rich and powerful – if such a move was suggested the debate about the value of no win no fee could become even more fierce.

This post was written by Leon S Felloway from Injury Claims Solutions – a UK-based dental negligence claims company.

Distracted Driving, Cellphones and Corporate Liability

A recent string of serious and even fatal car accidents caused by the careless driving of employees behind the wheel of company cars and trucks while using their cellphones is shifting the nature of some personal injury lawsuits in Virginia. Experienced car accident law firms are increasingly going after the deep pockets of corporations whose employees are allowed to text, talk, and email while behind the wheel, with some judgments as high as $20 million.

Distracted driving lawsuits in Virginia are on the rise, and the National Safety Council estimates that nationwide about one-quarter of all crashes involve cellphones or texting — about 1.2 million accidents a year. Many of these accidents are the fault of those in company cars, vans, and trucks, utilizing their cellphones while making deliveries, heading to their next installation appointment, or hauling a load of supplies or equipment. Recent accidents include a lumber salesman who crippled a 78-year-old woman when he lost control of his car due to texting behind the wheel; an employee-driver of a toy company’s van who killed a college student, and a driver in a company car who didn’t react when traffic slowed, rear-ending a Honda in a chain-reaction crash that killed a 32-year-old woman. Although many corporations have moved to ban the use of cellphones by employees while driving company cars, many still refuse to do so.

A concern of many regarding distracted driving accidents is how, exactly, they will prove that another driver was on their cellphone. According to Dr. Paul Atchley, a distracted-driving expert witness from the University of Kansas, it is now possible to track the movement of cellphones in real time, in motion. This, in turn, makes it much easier for personal injury attorneys to establish that a driver was using their phone at the time of a car crash.

The loss of a loved one due to another driver’s distracted driving is a pain that may be difficult to bear. While legal action cannot undo the tragic events, it may help those suffering a loss to get back on their feet, and allow them to work towards being made whole again. For more information, please contact and experienced personal injury attorney in Virginia.

Written by Phil Balbo, staff writer with Price Benowitz LLP. Please contact our reckless driving lawyers for more information or to schedule a free consultation. You can also visit Hands Free Info for more information on cell phone and other distracted driving laws in Virginia.

More free guest PI blogs

The great thing about the editor of this site and his way of business is that he really gets that giving tends to result in people giving back – he is happy to promote others and other resources in the knowledge, but not the requirement, that they will naturally want to help him. His resources, like this site, become useful resources for others and so on.

At Evolved Legal, we are certainly happy to help in any way we can and are sure other readers of this blog feel likewise.

In any event, they have kindly allowed us to post some other personal injury resources which accept suitable guest blogs. The sites concerned are :-

  • http://www.accidentclaimsadvisor.org.uk/
  • http://www.accidents-claim.co.uk/
  • http://www.aca-claims.co.uk

We are more than happy to post useful content, but it must be 100% original and quality content and not a shameless plug. The other rule is that any post must refer to 3rd party resources which may be genuinely helpful for the reader.

Injured Passenger Initiates Unsual Car Accident Compensation Claim

An unusual car accident compensation claim has been initiated by a woman who sustained serious personal injuries in a car accident whilst abroad in Poland. The woman is seeking £300,000 in personal injury damages for the incident. The car accident compensation claim writ was recently submitted to the High Court in London and picked up on by a local newspaper named the Huddersfield Daily Journal. It seems that the woman, who is 28 years old is a local to the area, was riding as a passenger in the back seat of the car. A family member was driving the Fiat punto which was insured by a Polish company. Their small vehicle collided with a BMW whilst approaching a cross-junction in the road and the blame for the incident is being put on the Fiat driver.

The woman, who now lives Jagger Lane which is in Honley, is filing the car accident compensation claim against the Polish insurance company of the car in which she was riding as a passenger. The Polish insurance company is based in Poland’s capital, Warsaw and has representatives in the United Kingdom at Inter Europe in Trafford Park in Manchester. The legal team representing the woman state that the personal injury claim must be met as the insurance company is bound by Polish Law to do so. The man driving the Fiat was facing a conviction in June of last year but had his jail sentence suspended by a three year probationary period at the Polish courts. The car accident took place in the south of Poland near a small town called Skoczow which is close to this Silesian foothills.

The list of extensive personal injuries sustained in car accident include fractures to sacral bones and a series of complex fractures sustained to the woman’s right leg. Also reported is a fractured left collarbone, fractures in the neck, a fractured pelvis and also a brain injury. The car accident compensation claim writ states that the woman still suffers to this day due to the personal injuries which happened in the beginning of last year. So far, it’s thought that this car accident happened as the Fiat driver was negligent and failed to pay sufficient attention to the road in order to spot the BMW at the junction. The outcome of this road traffic accident claim remains to be seen.

iPhone App to Help ID Whiplash Claimants

The famous Apple iPhone catchphrase; ‘there’s an app for that too’, has spanned its already considerable horizon even further afield. Recently released is an application which allows doctors to take photos of whiplash accident compensation victims which can subsequently be uploaded to a medical report database to confirm identity. Dr David Pearce, who is the Chief Technology Officer at the Information Systems Assurance and Advisory Services (iSaaS) stated that an increasing amount of pressure is being applied to doctors to make the appropriate identification checks in order to prove that the person that they are examining is in fact the person making the whiplash injury compensation claim. He stated that a pilot of the application had already demonstrated that three individuals examined by doctors in whiplash injury cases we are in fact stand-ins and not the real claimants.

Dr Pearce stated that “The claims management company or, in my case, the driver of the car, brought along a stand-in”. The person making the whiplash injury claim had not done anything wrong, but some claims management companies are unscrupulous in their practice. They stated that insurance companies harbour rising concerns surrounding the issue of stand-ins who are often thoroughly primed on how to convincingly fake an examination in order to make a stronger case for a whiplash claim.

The new technology works by allowing doctors to use the iPhone to take a photograph of the person and uploaded it onto the database. The photograph would be passed through a secure server and be uploaded into the cloud. When it’s finished, medical reports and the photographic ID will be merged together. The picture will contain information such as the date and time taken and also a GPS stamp stating the location in which it was taken. It’s common for a claimant to leave proof of identification such as passport or driving license at home, but even this evidence can be unsatisfactory for the situation of making a whiplash claim. The new system should provide a reliable way to positively ID all whiplash cases. The software will be available as a free accessory to the report-writing software known as Corex.

Welcome to TortBlawg: A Law Blog on Tort Law across the World

Welcome to TortBlawg: Tort Law 2.0

Following on from the continued success of PersonalInjuryClaimsBlawg in helping to share legal information and news regarding personal injury law, we are pleased to announce the arrival of TortBlawg. This law blog, otherwise known as a “blawg”, is designed to contribute to tort law from around the globe, with a particular emphasis on the development of tort law from the Australia, Canada, the US, England and Scotland (under the head of ‘delict‘, which is admittedly more to do with principle rather than specific legal wrongs). This blawg is designed specifically for law firms, lawyers, law students and businesses looking to know more about and indeed share more about tort law and practice.

As noted from Wikipedia, tort law concerns those situations where a person’s behaviour has unfairly caused someone else to suffer loss or harm. Allowing people to recover loss for harm, tort does not necessarily deal with actions which are illegal and indeed there is a major distinction to be drawn between the law of tort and criminal law (which concerns situations where an individual has acted in such a way as to harm society generally). A tort claim (often known as a personal injury claim or an accident claim) can be brought by anyone who has suffered loss (cf criminal cases which are often brought by the State).

If you would like to publish a guest blog post on TortBlawg or become a permanent contributor, please do not hesitate to get in touch at https://wardblawg.com/contact.

MD Birth Control Injury Attorneys Warn of Blood Clot Risk with Non-Oral Contraceptives

It’s widely known that oral contraceptives such as Yasmin and Beyaz come with an increased risk of blood clots, or venous thromboembolism (VTE). Now, results from a Danish study recently been published in the British Medical Journal, has found that significantly higher risks of blood clots are found in women who use non-oral hormonal contraceptives such as transdermal patches and vaginal rings. Researchers followed the health of more than 1.5 million women for over 10 years and discovered that those who utilized vaginal rings have a six times higher risk of developing blood clots than women using non-hormonal methods of birth control. Women who used the transdermal patches had a risk eight times higher than those not using hormonal contraceptives.

Researchers also looked at progesterone implants, but found no significant increase in blood clot risk.

Product liability attorneys in Maryland are concerned that women already at high risk of VTE may be taking non-oral contraceptives and increasing the chance of stroke and serious injury. Physicians are encouraged to discuss a patient’s health history, and any relevant risk factors, before prescribing contraceptives such as vaginal rings and transdermal patches. Those at a high risk of VTE should be regularly monitored and eliminate behaviors that may further increase the danger of clots, such as smoking.

With an increase in blood clot injuries in women using these non-oral forms of birth control, an uptick in birth control injury lawsuits are expected, similar to those faced by Bayer AG, maker of oral contraceptives Yasmin and Yaz. In those cases, Bayer ultimately agreed to pay an estimated $110 million to settle some 500 lawsuits over claims that its contraceptives caused venous thromboembolism (VTE).

VTE is a potentially fatal condition in which blood clots occur and travel through the veins. These blood clots can cause heart attack and stroke, and, in extreme cases, a clot can travel to the lung and result in death. Women who are currently utilizing vaginal ring or transdermal patch contraceptives and have experienced serious medical side effects are advised to contact an experienced Maryland product liability attorney for more information.

Written by Phil Balbo, staff writer for Price Benowitz LLP. To learn more about birth control and their potential to cause blood clots, please visit the National Institute of Health. Please contact the Maryland personal injury attorneys with Price Benowitz LLP for a free consultation.

FDA to Review Metal-On-Metal Hip Implants

Below is a guest personal injury law blog regarding the FDA’s upcoming review of metal-on-metal hip implants.

The Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee, which is part of the Food and Drug Administration, will host a public meeting on June 27 and 28, 2012, to discuss the metal-on-metal hip implant system. This comes almost two years after Depuy Orthopedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, recalled its metal-on-metal ASR XL Acetabular Hip Systems.

The National Joint Registry of England and Wales released data saying that the five-year failure rate of the hip implants was at around 13 percent, which is one for every eight patients. Symptoms of the failure are: loss of vision, severe pain, implants loosening, dislocation of the implant, and toxic metal poisoning.

The FDA formed this committee to seek expert scientific and clinical analysis on the risks and benefits of the metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty systems based on the available scientific data. The decision comes almost a year after the FDA gave 145 orders for post market surveillance studies to the 21 manufactures of the metal-on-metal hip implant systems.

The Hip orthroplasty is used to increase the patient’s mobility and at the same time, reduce the pain by replacing the damaged hip joint where evidence of sufficient sound bone to seat and support the components.

The two categories of the metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty systems are:

1.    Metal-on-Metal total hip replacement (THR) systems consist of a metal ball (femoral head), a metal femoral stem in the thighbone, and a metal cup in the hip bone (acetabular component).  MoM THR systems are typically indicated for use in total hip arthroplasty in skeletally mature patients with the following conditions:
a.    Non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease (NIDJD) such as osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, post-traumatic arthritis, ankylosis, protrusio acetabuli, and painful hip dysplasia;
b.    Inflammatory degenerative joint disease such as rheumatoid arthritis;
c.    Correction of functional deformity; and,
d.    Revision procedures where other treatments or devices have failed.

2.    Metal-on-Metal hip resurfacing systems consist of a trimmed femoral head capped with a metal covering and a metal cup in the hip bone (acetabular component).  Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is intended for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved hip function in skeletally mature patients having the following conditions:
a.    Non-inflammatory degenerative arthritis such as osteoarthritis, traumatic arthritis,  avascular necrosis, or dysplasia/developmental dislocation of the hip (DDH); or
b.    Inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis.

The meeting will revolve around mechanisims of failure, metal ion testing, imaging methods, complications, pre and postoperative risks, and clinical follow up considerations for patients with the metal-on-metal hips, according to the FDA website.

This story is brought to you by Hipimplantrecovery.com. We help people who have fallen victim to defective metal-on-metal implants. To find out more information about defective hip implants, please visit our blog.

Room for improvement, says PiP implant review

I was interested to read Lord Howe’s recent report into the response by UK regulators to the PiP breast implant scandal.

This found that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Department of Health had acted properly, but that lessons needed to be learned.

Problems with breast implants manufactured by the Poly Implant Prothèse (PiP) Company first came to public attention late last year, when a French regulator urged French women with PiP implants to have them removed. This was because the implants had been found to contain non-medical grade silicone – and had a high rupture rate.

However, the concerns about PiP implants have been around for some time – so much so that in March 2010 the MHRA issued an alert advising breast implant surgeons not to use them.

But was this enough? Should more have been done? Health Minister Lord Howe was asked to find out.

According to Lord Howe, the regulator did do its job – acting appropriately and following scientific and clinical advice – but improvements must be made in communication and data collection, and in the Europe-wide system and processes for gathering and analysing data.

The report reveals that the MHRA’s investigations “were hampered by a lack of reliable and comprehensive information about all the adverse incidents relating to PIP breast implants.”

It was also trying to “draw evidence-based conclusions about the performance of a device from data that were incomplete, and which we now know were filtered through a manufacturer that turned out to be fraudulent”.

“It must be emphasised that this case was one of deliberate fraud by the PiP manufacturer which purposefully misled European regulators. Regulation alone cannot prevent fraudulent activity such as this,” said Lord Howe. “But serious lessons must be learned from this scandal. The MHRA needs to look at how it gathers evidence so it is able to identify problems early. It needs to better analyse reports about higher risk medical devices. And it needs to improve the way it communicates with the public.”

I’m glad to say that Mrs Thom has not been caught up in the scandal but, through my friends at Thompsons Solicitors, I know of many women who have been affected by it.

If you are worried that you are one of them, you should:

  • Find out if you have a PiP implant
  • Speak to your specialist or GP, if you had the implants on the NHS, or to your clinic if your original operation was carried out privately
  • Get advice on whether further assessment is necessary, and discuss appropriate action with your doctor
  • Consider speaking to a solicitor, as you might be entitled to compensation.

Accident Compensation: The Pros And Cons of Claiming In Court

Guest post contributed by Charles Worthering, on behalf of Accident-compensation.co.uk. Charles is a solicitor and works with clients on cases pertaining to accident compensation claims. In his spare time he enjoys writing about claims, patent disputes and infringement claims.

If you’ve been injured in a car accident, then you could be eligible for compensation from the driver who caused the accident. Similarly, if you’ve been injured in an accident at work, you can bring a claim for compensation against your employer. As with most legal proceedings, it’s a good idea to find and hire a good personal injury lawyer to represent you. This will give you and your case better odds of a positive outcome. Alternatively, it is sometimes possible to settle a claim out of court. Settling out of court avoids a lengthy legal process, but you might get a larger settlement by going through the courts. There are both pros and cons to claiming in court, which are explained in this article.

Benefits of Settling Out of Court

Sometimes, it is possible to settle compensation claims out of court. The other party might agree to pay you a settlement to avoid having to go through a court process. Settling out of court offers benefits for both parties, as you don’t have to go through the stressful process of arguing the case in court.

One of the main disadvantages of claiming in court is that the process can drag on for a long time. Settling out of court means that you don’t have to wait as long to get your payment. This is advantageous if you have bills that you need to pay urgently, or if you are experiencing urgent financial difficulties due to not being able to work because of your injuries.

The other big disadvantage of claiming in court is that even if you have a strong case, you can never guarantee that you will win. Settling out of court removes the risk of losing the court case and receiving no compensation.

Benefits of Claiming in Court

Even if the other party agrees to settle out of court, you may still prefer to claim in court. Agreeing to settle does not mean that the other party is admitting liability; the payment is simply being offered to avoid having to go to court. You might feel it is important to you to have a judge declare that the other party is at fault.

You might get more money if you claim in court than if you agree to accept the other party’s offer to settle. Compensation amounts that are ordered to be paid by the courts are usually higher than those offered as out-of-court settlements.

Many law firms in the UK offer “no win no fee” arrangements, which means that if you go to court and your claim is unsuccessful, you will not have to pay any legal fees. If you do win, your solicitor will take his or her fee from the compensation paid by the other party.

Conclusion

Whether you want to settle out of court or take your claim to court, you should contact a solicitor for help. A solicitor can negotiate an out-of-court settlement on your behalf, or guide you through the claims process and represent you in court if you decide to pursue your claim. Your solicitor will also be able to advise you on how likely you are to win if you go forward with claiming in court, so that you can make an informed decision about your best course of action.