My new page on California’s Prop 213 can be found here.
When you are injured, the insurance companies that represent the at-fault party have come up with a whole bag of tricks that they use to try to minimize your injury, so they can minimize the amount that they have to pay. They use these tricks everywhere from the initial phone call all the way through trial.
Be on the look out for these tricks and logical fallacies the next time that you have to deal with an unscrupulous insurance company.
This article discusses how the concepts of Absolute and Relative Risk can be used in a courtroom to prove a plaintiff’s injuries.
Governor Jerry Brown Signs Bill Limiting Depositions to Seven Hours By Auto Accident Lawyer Noah Schwinghamer According to this press release from CAOC, Governor Jerry Brown has signed AB 1875 – A bill designed to limit depositions in most cases to seven hours. This bill was backed by consumer’s rights groups such as CAOC and […]
This link shows the new court fees highlighted in yellow. Of note, the fee for filing a Complaint or Answer for a civil lawsuit in California has risen once again. The new fee is $435.00.
According to reports published by the BBC, the huge insurance company Munich Re rewarded 100 of its best insurance agents by sending them to a massive orgy. According to the report, the employees were taken to thermal baths in Budapest, Hungary, where 20 prostitutes awaited them. The prostitutes wore color-coded arm bands, indicating their availability, […]
Some days and times are more dangerous to be on the road than other. Read to find out the most dangerous days and times to drive, and be safe out there!
Today, August 18, 2011, the California Supreme Court released an important decision affecting injured Californians who attempt to seek civil justice when they are injured. More analysis will follow. For now, I am simply providing copies of the opinion online. You can download a PDF of the Howell decision below. Howell v. Hamilton Meats The […]
(1) Was Hanif correct that a tort plaintiff can recover only what has been paid or incurred for medical care, even if that is less than the reasonable value of the services rendered? (2) Even if Hanif, which involved Medi-Cal payments, reached the right result on its facts, does its logic extend to plaintiffs covered by private insurance? (3) Does limiting the plaintiff’s recovery to the amounts paid and owed on his or her behalf confer a windfall on the tortfeasor, defeating the policy goals of the collateral source rule? (4) Is the difference between the providers’ full billings and the amounts they have agreed to accept from a patient’s insurer as full payment—what the appellate court below called the “negotiated rate differential”—a benefit the patient receives from his or her health insurance policy subject to the collateral source rule? We address these questions below.
In honor of George Washington’s birthday, I have added a new page listing all of the court holidays for Sacramento Superior Court in 2011. What an honor! Sacramento Superior Court Holidays for 2011.
