Personal Injury Law Blogs

Potential Health Risks posed by “Fracking”

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is a procedure that is used to extract natural gas. The process involves forcing chemicals, sand and water at high pressure into rock deep below the earth’s surface, causing the rock to fracture, releasing natural gas and oil trapped within.

Natural gas acquired through fracking currently accounts for one-third of the U.S. gas supply, resulting in decreased natural gas prices nationwide. Although natural gas is being touted as a key to energy independence, many communities affected by fracking are concerned about potential health risks posed to groundwater and the air by the chemicals used in the process.

Early Research Suggests Fracking Pollutes

A recent study from the Colorado School of Public Health found levels of xylene, ethylbenzene and toluene in the air surrounding natural gas wells in Garfield County, Colorado. These chemicals have been linked to respiratory and neurological problems. Benzene is also a known carcinogen. The results of this study suggest that more research is necessary to determine just how the chemicals involved in fracking affect the environment and public health. This study shows that fracking is likely not only to contaminate ground water, but it appears to create harmful air pollution as well.

On April 17, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized standards that will reduce air pollution associated with fracking and natural gas production. These regulations provide the first federal standards regulating natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured. A full report of the dangers of fracking is expected at the end of 2012.

Recent Legal Action

Although fracking has not been clearly linked to health risks, some Pennsylvania citizens are concerned that their mysterious ailments could be related to nearby natural gas drilling. However, because natural gas companies are refusing to disclose the chemicals used in their process, doctors are unable to assess the potential health risks.

In an effort to address these health concerns, Pennsylvania has a bill pending that would compel natural gas companies to disclose the types of chemicals that are being used for fracking to doctors. However, the doctors must sign a confidentiality agreement which will make it illegal for them to share the names of the chemicals used in drilling with their patients. Doctors are concerned about the vagueness of the law, and fear that it will open them up to malpractice lawsuits by their patients angered by the lack of disclosure.

A case was filed in Scranton, Pennsylvania after a woman’s well exploded, allegedly from chemicals that built up in the water supply due to nearby fracking. State legislators blamed a the Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, suggesting that their natural gas drilling methods had increased the levels of methane in local wells. These elevated levels of methane gas are blamed for causing the well explosion. Although Cabot did not admit responsibility, under an agreement they established under the guidance of state legislators, the company has set up a fund of over $4 million available to families with polluted wells. So far, families with affected wells have claimed nearly $2 million from this fund.

One of the latest States to enter the fray is California, where rules and regulations pertaining to fracking are just coming into debate. California has one of the toughest tort environments in the United States and there is no doubt that each wrongful death attorney in Los Angeles is closely watching the legislative process to identify the parameters of future suits, as are the oil companies. California with its massive economy and robust fossil fuel industry may very well be the case study for the nation’s fracking rules going forward.

Future of Fracking-Related Lawsuits

More than 23 cases have been filed nationwide seeking recourse for the health and environmental consequences posed by fracking. So far, lawyers have been unable to link health consequences to the fracking process, but with more awareness of the potential dangers, the pending EPA study, and the findings by the Colorado School of Public Health, it is likely that natural gas companies will be subject to tighter regulations in the future. If these studies are able to link the chemicals released by fracking to substantial risks to human health, the gas companies will no longer be able to deny that fracking is harmful and they may be liable for damage caused to public health and the environment.

Parker Waichman LLP Represents Plaintiffs in Lawsuits Claiming Damage from DePuy ASR Hip Implants

The national law firm of Parker Waichman LLP is representing several patients who experienced complications from DePuy ASR hip implants; the defective metal-on-metal hip devices started an onslaught of media and medical attention since DePuy’s massive recall in 2010.

One of the cases is filed on behalf of a 62-year woman from Ferrum, Virginia, who received her ASR hip implant in October 2007. Despite the fact that hip implants are expected to last a minimum of 10 to 15 years, she experienced serious side effects as early as February 2011, the complaint states. Allegedly, she suffers from pain and elevated chromium and cobalt levels as a result of the implant. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, is seeking compensatory, punitive damages and medical monitoring.

DePuy Recall

In August 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics (Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) recalled the ASR resurfacing system and the ASR acetabular systems. According to a study published in the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, the implants were failing in 12 to 13 percent of patients within five years. Unfortunately, the devices had already been implanted in 93,000 patients around the world. The recall not only drew attention to DePuy’s flaws, it cast light on the metal-on-metal hip industry as a whole.

Recent Evidence

DePuy’s recall is not the only piece of evidence backing the lawsuits. In February, the British Medical Journal published a report showing that device makers were well aware of the risks associated with metal-on-metal implants and failed to properly warn the public. According to the report, patients have experienced cobalt levels 600 times higher than what is naturally formed in the body. Even more disconcerting are the “uncertain risks” associated with these increased levels. Last month, The Lancet published a study showing that metal-on-metal hip replacements failed in 6 percent of patients within five years, compared to the 1.7 to 2.3 percent seen in other types of implants such as ceramic or plastic.

FDA Warnings

In response to the growing concern over metal-on-metal hips, last May the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered 21 manufacturers to conduct post-market studies assessing the dangers of metal ions generated by the devices. The agency is also currently conducting its own review.

Big google changes – impact on personal injury

Unlike many other law firms, personal injury practices get the internet. They understand their market well and know that, as with almost all other business sectors, upwards of 20% and rising of instructions now derive from online searches.

There are 2 ways to succeed in getting on page 1 of google for the hundreds of volume UK personal injury searches each month. The first is pay per click. Of course, whoever pays the most per click will appear at the top of google’s searches, but did you know that for many high volume personal injury searches, each click can cost as much as £30.00 ?! Some of the bigger personal injury practices are spending literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands on pay per click and they wouldn’t be doing so if they weren’t getting a return on that investment.

The second method is search engine optimisation (seo) to appear high in the organic listings, which are not paid for. Again, personal injury firms know the value of this traffic and pay big money to seo companies. But things are changing and have massively changed in the last month. Google has clamped down on “over optimisation” and link buying in an unprecedented way. Buying inbound links from other websites to your own has been the number 1 factor for getting onto page 1 of google organically for years. But no more. Not only no more but google, out of the blue, and perhaps unfairly, has actually penalised sites for link buying in a big way,. with many losing 20-50 places in the rankings.

This is a risky ploy by google – it is hurting some of the very same personal injury practices that pay it big money in pay per click. For whatever reason, and many say the whole idea is to drive more people to pay per click and raise the costs even more, there is a window of opportunity for those with a smaller budget and a clean backlink profile, to reap the benefits of this upheaval.

One firm which tells us that their rankings have improved significantly in the last week is Waring & Co. The firm has 2 websites, a main site and also http://www.personal-injury-claims.co.uk. Whilst it’s only 1 search term among many, google “personal injury”. You’ll see both sites are in the top 20.

Interesting times in personal injury online marketing …

Can local personal injury firms compete with nationwide practices

Personal injury is a dog eat dog part of legal practice perhaps like no other except conveyancing. It is also perhaps the most lucrative area of law outside of the top corporate practices, so is it any wonder that buying power and marketing budgets have been a key driver ?

Not only do smaller personal injury practices have to compete against national tv and radio advertising campaigns, but there is  a growing trend for bigger and bigger incentives to be paid to potential clients. This is all aside from the controversy of referral fees being paid.

So, is there scope for a more localised approach in the personal injury sector ?

Lloyd’s solution is a new concept, for the people. Rather than simply trot out the 100% compensation, hard sell approach, Lloyd’s firm are using a slogan as associated with them, with different connotations. The aim is to make the slogan “for the people” synonymous with personal injury claims in Essex.

The other aspect of Lloyd Green’s message is that, perhaps aside from whiplash, it’s vital to have a personal injury lawyer on your side who is a specialist, capable and accessible to you, just as with other forms of legal advice. With a serious work injury for example, it is vital to have a lawyer you trust who specializes in that branch claim rather than a claims handler.

It will be interesting to see if the above approach works. what do you think ?

Child Safety Seats

Around 25 children between the ages of 0 and 11 years are killed in car accidents annually, about 250 are seriously injured and around 6,000 slightly injured. If a car accident occurs, a child who is unrestrained may be thrown out of the car or thrown forward with a force that is 30 to 60 times of their weight.

Children should therefore always be appropriately restrained and use a seat that is suitable for their size, age and weight. This will significantly reduce the risk of child being killed or injured, should a car accident occur.

The law requires all children up until the age of 12 or 135cm in height to use the correct restraint and the driver of a car is legally bound to make sure that any children that are traveling in the vehicle are properly restrained. It is crucial that drivers follow this law exactly as the proper use of child car restraints prevents many of child deaths and injuries occurring in the car accidents.

If you or someone in your family has been involved in a car accident, please do not hesitate to contact Thompsons No Win No Fee specialists who will advise you on your first steps to receiving the compensation that you deserve.

Why Your Health Insurance Hates Your Car Accident

Below is a guest personal injury law article regarding health insurance and car accidents from Rick Console, a New Jersey personal injury attorney. Rick is the founding partner of Console and Hallowell P.C., an award-winning law firm representing accident victims across New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Private health insurance is a job perk for many employees across the United States. The access to affordable healthcare helps prevent and treat a number of illnesses that might have gone unattended otherwise. In Georgia and other states across the country, you have an option to declare Georgia Medigap insurance coverage as your primary care provider in a car accident. This declaration means private health coverage pays for related medical expenses before personal injury protection or PIP coverage under your auto insurance.

The choice can make it easier for your family doctor to submit insurance claims for payment, but you also give your health insurance provider rights to your settlement money.

In any car accident, it’s important to have an experienced legal team on your side. Competent attorneys act as shields between you and insurance companies or healthcare providers trying to force you to pay inflated medical bills or get you to agree to settle your case for a smaller dollar amount. For example, a New Jersey man sustains serious injuries in an accident involving a tractor-trailer. He’s elected his private health insurance as the primary insurer. The Newark truck accident attorneys in charge of his case can work with his health insurance provider to reduce his medical bills relating to accident. This action increases the total settlement he can receive from his personal injury claim.

What is Personal Injury Protection Coverage?

Personal injury protection or PIP coverage is a selection under your auto insurance policy that pays for medical expenses that treat your related injuries. PIP coverage through your auto insurance is the default primary insurer when you’re in a car accident. Choosing to switch that coverage to your private health insurance involves an entity that doesn’t have the legal obligation to pay for your crash-related injuries that your PIP coverage carries. Because of this, your health insurance has the right to claim a portion of any settlement you receive to recoup expenses related to your treatment. In New Jersey, the minimum required personal injury protection coverage for auto insurance is just $15,000.

In a car accident, ambulance services and other emergency care can easily exhaust the limitations of an auto insurance policy with only the minimum PIP coverage. Increasing the maximum coverage under an auto insurance policy into the $100,000 range doesn’t substantially raise monthly/yearly premiums. Paying a couple hundred dollars extra per year in insurance is a small price in the face of six-figure medical bills.

Health Insurance Collection Practices

If you select your health insurance policy as the primary coverage for medical expenses in an accident, your health insurance provider may file a medical lien against you to ensure the company receives proper compensation. A medical lien is a form of security interest used to guarantee payment for a debt – in this case, the medical bills from your car accident. Unless you act to reduce or eliminate the lien, the action reduces your civil settlement by the lien’s total amount. If the lien is larger than your settlement, you may receive zero compensation. To avoid this circumstance, declare your PIP coverage as your primary care provider for auto accident injuries. Once your bills for your injuries exhaust your PIP insurance, your private health insurance can handle the remaining balances.

PIP coverage is there as part of your auto insurance solely to pay for medical expenses resulting from an auto accident. Failing to take advantage of this coverage allows your insurance company to take your premium money each month without having to payout a dime when you’re hurt. Using PIP coverage doesn’t entitle your insurance company to any portion of a settlement you may reach in connection with your accident. Retaining a larger portion of your settlement is important to replace your lost income and restore your quality of life. The last thing you want is for everyone else to profit from your misfortune and leave you to pay the bill.

Three Key Components of a Personal Injury Claim

If you’re hurt as the result of an accident or you’re injured by a defective product, you may be eligible to seek compensation for your medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering. In order to do so, you will need to file a personal injury claim against the responsible party. A personal injury claim involves three key elements and it’s important that you understand what these components are to determine whether you may be entitled to damages.

I. Liability

The first component of a solid personal injury claim is liability. Not only can these procedures not be too straight forward at times, but the terminology can throw you for a loop at times. For an example, lets look at liability.

Liability means that someone else can be held legally responsible for an action that resulted in an injury. For example, if you’re injured as the result of a car accident, liability depends on whether the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the other driver. Negligence refers to a failure to use reasonable care to prevent an injury or accident.

Liability applies to both individuals and organizations, such as companies that manufacture defective or harmful products. It should go without saying, but it is strongly suggested you hire a tried-and-true personal injury attorney to assist you. They will be able to helpfully inform you of the steps to take in order to follow proper procedure. Not only that, but if you are going up against a company they will have capable lawyers, and as such you will need someone with experience to help you mount a defense in order to be successful.

If you’re injured as the result of someone else’s negligence on their property, the doctrine of premises liability will apply in these situations. For example, if you slip and fall on a broken or damaged sidewalk and the property’s owner was aware of the potential for an accident but did not take steps to avoid it, they may be held liable for your injuries.

II. Injury/Damages

The second requirement of a personal injury claim with personal injury attorneys is that you must have suffered some type of injury or sustained other damages. There are a wide variety of damages or injuries that you may be entitled to compensation for. These include:

  • Physical injury
  • Pain and suffering
  • Permanent disability or impairment
  • Lost wages
  • Medical bills
  • Mental anguish
  • Loss of consortium
  • Wrongful death
  • Decrease in quality of life

Your personal injury lawyer can evaluate the facts of your case in order to help you determine what type of damages you may be entitled to and in what amount.

III. Recovery

Finally, you must be able to recover the damages you’re entitled to for your injuries. When a judgment is entered against a defendant, it simply means that the court has deemed the person or entity financially responsible for the outcome of their actions. Additional action is needed in order to recover the judgment itself. If an individual or entity is financially unable to fulfill the terms of the judgment, you won’t be able to recover the money you’re entitled to until their circumstances change. For example, if you sue your neighbor for damages after their dog bites you, a judgment in your favor does not guarantee that you will recover your costs if they lack sufficient insurance or cash resources to pay your claim. The judgment will remain in place but it may take years for you to collect.

Whether your injuries were caused by a car accident, workplace incident, defective product or other circumstances involving negligence, it’s important that you speak with an experienced personal injury attorney to protect your rights. Your attorney can tell you whether you have grounds to file a personal injury claim and the potential for a successful outcome.

Tort Reform’s Effects: Intended Versus Actual

As we saw in this Tort Reform article, the proposed U.S. H.R. 5 Act is a big issue to Americans.  The act will place a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in all U.S. medical malpractice lawsuits.  Most think this is a good thing.  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), tort reform could save the U.S. government $54 billion dollars in 10 years.  This is because “Tort reform could affect costs for health care both directly and indirectly: directly, by lowering premiums for medical liability insurance; and indirectly, by reducing the use of diagnostic tests and other health care services when providers recommend those services principally to reduce their potential exposure to lawsuits.”  But the question is: Will tort reform really do as it is predicted?

The Act tells citizens what it wants to do and how it wants to do it; but what it doesn’t specify is how the plan will work.  And the way it will work is a ripple of cause and effects that will ultimately lead to a decrease in medical malpractice lawsuits.

First, in placing a federal cap on noneconomic damages, tort reform will diminish lawyers’ incentive to both specialize in medical malpractice and take medical malpractice cases.  In limiting how much plaintiffs can receive for in noneconomic damages, i.e. compensation for the pain and suffering caused by a negligent health care professional, the federal act will ultimately limit how much money lawyers can take home when they win a case.  And because, as with anyone trying to make a living, lawyers work to make money, they will change professions or be highly selective in the medical malpractice cases they take.  This was seen in Texas, which implemented a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in 2003.  The state saw nearly 95 percent of its medical malpractice lawyers either stop taking medical malpractice cases or leave the state.

Second, because there will be fewer lawyers to take medical malpractice cases and those that do will be incredibly selective in the cases they take, a dramatic decrease in the number of medical malpractice claims filed will be seen throughout the United States.  And because the majority of such claims are not frivolous despite media and political rhetoric, what this means is that those injured due to medical negligence will have high long-term medical bills that they might not be able to afford.  In Texas, both Medicaid and private health care costs increased in the 4 years following the caps implementation.

Third, with fewer claims filed, medical malpractice insurance companies will see a decrease in indemnity payments, i.e. insurance payouts for lawsuits brought against their insured physicians.  In addition to paying out less due to less lawsuits, medical malpractice insurance companies will being paying out less on medical malpractice cases in which the plaintiff settled or won their case because of the federal caps.

And this is where federal tort reform seems to be a success.  However, what it seems and what it is are two different things.  The idea was that in decreasing medical malpractice insurance companies’ expenses, said companies would lower the insurance premiums their insured doctors must pay.  This, in effect, would be savings passed down the line to patients and would lower health care costs.  Instead, insurance companies have pocketed the savings tort reform brought them.  According to the American Association for Justice, “In states with caps, the average loss ratio is 24 percent better than in states without caps. The same is true if profitability is measured by other methods.  ‘Profits on insurance transactions,’ the amount of money the industry makes on premiums alone was 25 percent in states without caps, but a significantly higher 45 percent in states with caps….  In states without caps, insurance companies took in just over twice what they paid out in 2008. However, in states with caps, insurance companies took in 3.5 times what they paid out. In effect, insurance companies continue taking in the same level of premiums, but pay out less in states with tort reform.”

So what will tort reform really accomplish?  The answer is three things.  It will save the government money by cutting down the number of lawsuits in courthouses nationwide.  It will increase the profits medical malpractice insurance companies make.  If states with caps are any indication of the effects federal tort reform will have, citizens, doctors, and personal injury lawyers specializing in medical malpractice can be sure to suffer while big business and government benefit.

Injuries on the golf course: Anthony Phee v James Gordon & Another [2011] CSOH 181

Judgment in the case of Phee v Gordon was delivered last year, although I thought it would be useful to remind readers of its importance, not just within delict under Scots law, but also for golfers and insurance companies across the UK.

To summarise, a golfer named Anthony Phee who lost an eye after being hit by a golf ball at Niddry Castle Golf Club in Scotland succeeded with his claim in the Scottish courts, winning almost £400,000 in damages. The Outer House of the Court of Session held that the golfer who struck Mr Phee was 70% liable for the accident and that the club was 30% liable. Not only does Anthony Phee’s case set a useful precedent in terms of golf ball injuries and in respect of the law of delict under Scots Law, it also has practical implications for golfers and their clubs particularly in respect of insurance.

This blawger has been in the unfortunate position of having struck someone on the head with a golf ball before. And indeed I have been on the receiving end of a few golf shots, one of which caught me on the right temple. At dinner conversations this usually prompts the response ‘Is that what happened to you?’. With lawyers at the table, it also sparks a discussion of volenti non fit injuria i.e. ‘to a willing person, injury is not done’. The Phee case will have a strong bearing on such discussions in the future. The facts, which are important, are as follows:-

Facts

On 10 August 2007 the pursuer, Anthony Phee, was playing golf at Niddry Castle Golf Course in West Lothian Playing in the company of three of his work colleagues having been admitted as guests through a member of the club, who did not accompany them on their golf round.

The pursuer was the victim of a serious accident when he was struck in the eye by a golf ball driven by the first defender, James Gordon. The locus of the accident was a spot on a path leading between the 6th green and 7th tee, approximately 15 metres or thereby short of the 7th tee. They were following a path along the edge of the 18th fairway.

The path was narrow, being bounded on one side by the 18th fairway and on the other by gorse bushes.  The 18th tee was facing them. A person driving a golf ball from that tee would strike the ball down the 18th fairway, the ball travelling in the general direction of the pursuer and his playing companions.

At the point where the accident happened the group, including the pursuer, were approximately 150 yards from the 18th tee. The defender was aiming at a target area approximately 200 yards in front of the tee and at least 65 yards left of the pursuer.  His shot was a bad one and he immediately became aware that it had veered sharply to the left and was therefore travelling directly in the direction of a group of golfers, the pursuer and his three companions, whom he could see in the distance approaching the 7th tee.

He gave evidence that he immediately shouted “fore” in a loud voice. He also gave evidence that his playing companion also shouted “fore” and may also have added a shout of “get down”. The first that the pursuer was aware of this occurrence was when he heard a shout of “fore”. He heard only one shout of “fore”. He heard no other warning shout. At the time he heard this shout he was pulling, holding with his right hand, a golf trolley. He did not know where the shout of “fore” had come from. His immediate reaction was to duck or crouch down and place his left, or free, hand over his head whilst at the same time trying to look upwards.

Whilst in this position he was struck in the eye by the golf ball which had been struck by Mr Gordon. The pursuer’s three companions also heard the shout of “fore”. None of these companions could recall hearing a second shout of “fore”. None of them heard a warning shout of “get down”. These three persons all took avoiding action by ducking and putting their hands over their heads. The pursuer and his three playing companions all gave evidence that had there been any warning signs on the path between the 6th green and the 7th tee they would have had regard to them and heeded any precautionary instructions given.

The pursuer, having lost his eye through the injury sustained, raised an action for damages at the Court of Session following the incident against two defenders. The first defender, James Gordon, was the person who struck the golf ball which hit Mr Phee causing him to sustain injury. The second defenders were the members of the golf club who occupied and operated the golf course where the accident occurred.

The pursuer averred that his loss and damage was caused as a result of fault on the part of the first defender.  The case against the second defenders was based on a breach of obligation under and in terms of section 2(1) of the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960.

More detailed facts are set out in the full opinion here

Held

The Court held in favour of the pursuer, noting that when Mr Gordon arrived at the 18th tee on the day in question he made the error of overestimating the likelihood of his tee shot following its desired or intended path to its intended target and, simultaneously, underestimating the degree of risk to which his shot would place the pursuer and his three companions then proceeding on the path between the 6th green and the 7th tee.  On the basis of his own evidence these errors were caused by an inflated degree of confidence.

As a result of this overconfidence Mr Gordon made his tee shot at a time when the exercise of reasonable care should have informed him that there was a foreseeable risk that his shot might be bad and might encroach on the area being crossed by the pursuer.

The court considered that the risks “should have been within the contemplation of Mr Gordon because he should have appreciated that every golfer, no matter his or her degree of competence, will make bad shots. Further he should have appreciated, as a matter of commonsense if nothing else, that the lower the degree of skill of a golfer the more likely there is to be a bad shot. He should have appreciated that, at the material time, he was a golfer of, at best, moderate skill and therefore he was more likely than a more skilled golfer to make a bad shot.”

Further the court stated that Mr Gordon should have appreciated, ‘as a matter of commonsense if nothing else, that the lower the degree of skill of a golfer the more likely there is to be a bad shot.  He should have appreciated that, at the material time, he was a golfer of, at best, moderate skill and therefore he was more likely than a more skilled golfer to make a bad shot.’

Lord Brailsford therefore found that primary liability for the accident sustained by Mr Phee rests with Mr Gordon, the first defender.

Regarding the second defenders, the golf club, the court considered their attitude in assessing risk unduly restrictive and by failing to take a more proactive approach, the second defenders were failing in a duty owned to persons coming on to the course.

Expert evidence indicated that signs would have been a proper and effective way to draw risk to the attention of golfers and that such signs, had they existed, would have been likely to have been heeded. The court accordingly formed the view that the failure to provide signs either at the 18th tee or in the area between the 6th green and 7th tee was a failure of duty by the second defenders.

Approaching the matter of responsibility the court found that primary responsibility lies with the first defender, Mr Gordon, whose failure lay in failing to exercise reasonable care in the execution of his drive shot.  It found that he was 70% responsible for the accident which occurred and that the remaining 30% of liability rests with the second defender for their failure to place signs at appropriate places on this golf course.

Useful commentary

Michael Nicolson, partner at Harper Macleod, wrote this useful analysis piece in the Law Society of Scotland’s Journal.

Paul McConville provides useful comment in his Scots Law Thoughts Blog.

Anthony Phee himself said  “I am delighted at the judgment and relieved that the court case is over.

“No-one expects to lose an eye when they go to play golf and adjusting to partially losing my sight has been a harrowing experience. I now just want to move on with my life.

“I would like to thank my legal team for their support and consideration throughout this long and distressing ordeal.”

David Sandison, Senior Partner of Lawford Kidd, Solicitors in Edinburgh, Scotland, said last year: “We are delighted that after a long struggle Mr Phee has been awarded compensation for his injuries. Damages have been agreed at around £400,000.”

Concussions, Brain Injury Claims and the NHL

Below is a guest personal injury article regarding concussions, brain injury claims and the NHL.

One of the worrying factors that the NHL seems to be unable to control is the high number of concussions and brain injuries that the players sustain during the games. For the first time, the league disclosed the fact that the number of concussions in this season is on par with last year’s number. When such accidents happen it would be interesting to find out how many (if any) players decide to file brain injury claims for the injuries that they have suffered.

NHL obviously doesn’t release the exact number of victims of head injuries but it states with serenity that it does not have a concussion–related crisis or epidemic. However, despite what many players, agents and media representatives suggested, NHL had no proof to sustain their claims.

What is more worrying is the fact that almost anyone that has any connection with the league can recite the names of the most famous players that have been injured. However, how many third and fourth line players have been injured and nobody has a clue how they are, if they have presses head injury claims or not and so on. The main concern is that it will take a lot of concussions suffered by the star players for the NHL to admit the fact that they have an epidemic on their hands. The average player that was traumatized by the game and is now suffering brain damage is surely disadvantaged in this situation where the only thing that he can do is to file brain injury claims and start a legal fight with the NHL.

The fact that some players are superstars and some are not should not be measured in the concussions that one has to sustain until his rights are respected. More safety equipment, the red line introduced back in the field, hiring a team of experts in order to analyze the problem and give reasonable conclusions and advice. All of these are very important aspects that should be at least taken into consideration.

When you have been involved in this kind of accident then you should make sure that you file head injury claims. This is the only way that one can make sure that his rights are respected and that you receive the compensation you deserve. With the right financial help you will be able to pay your medical treatment and you will also make sure that your family won’t have to support you with money.

If you are planning to file head injury claims then you should make sure that you hire the best solicitors in order to help you. With their expertise and their help you will be able to win the case in court and not have to worry about the legal process. Brain injuries can leave you paralyzed, unable to speak or move for the rest of your life. You will need constant medical attention and care and this is why you have to file claims. Receiving compensation for your medical care is the only way you will be able to make sure that you will have a chance in the future.