How Lawyers Manage Governmental Immunity in Wrongful Death & Personal Injury Cases

Posted on December 19, 2018December 19, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

How Lawyers Deal with Government Sovereign Immunity for Wrongful Death and Personal Injury

Example: An IV catheter mistake leads to wrongful death

Bethany Johnson was a patient at a Kansas City, Missouri hospital. She was undergoing chemotherapy to treat her cancer. Her physicians decided to give her the cytotoxic chemotherapy drug Taxol through a peripheral vein.

They failed to check for leaks.
They failed to check for a back flow.

Ms. Johnson informed the nurses she was experiencing pain and burning in her arm that seemed to be spreading.

They continued giving the cytotoxic chemotherapy drug in spite of her report.

Ms. Johnson then reported blisters and ulcers on her arm that seems to be spreading. She felt sick like she had the flu.

Her nurses’ aides and the physicians did not switch to a central vein catheter.
Johnson was not treated.

Her extravasation injury led to the amputation of her right arm. This extended her hospital stay, caused an infection, and ultimately her death. Ms. Johnson was staying at a hospital owned by the government.

Can her survivors recover for their loss?

The History of Governmental Immunity from Wrongful Death and Injury lawsuits

“Sovereign immunity” has a long historical tradition in our court system. We adopted our laws from the British common court system. The British adopted its laws from Rome and the Catholic Church.

Each of these systems lived by the principle that “the king can do no wrong.” See Guy Seidman, The Origins of Accountability: Everything I Know About Sovereign Immunity, I Learned from King Henry the Third, 49 St. Louis U. Law J. 393 (2004). In short, the government cannot be sued in court for money unless it consents.

Governments Have Immunity from Wrongful Death Claims In Most Circumstances

Our legislature has enacted statutes following up injury accidents and wrongful death claims against the government. This is codified in R.S.Mo. § 537.600.

The sovereign immunity statute for wrongful death and injury lawsuits adopts the immunity of government as existed in the common law of courts prior to 1977.

Two Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity

“Sovereign immunity is the rule rather than the exception.” Benoit v. Mo. Hwy. & Trans. Comm’n, 33 S.W.3d 663,673 (Mo.App. 2000).

However, our statute carves out two exceptions where the government can be sued for wrongful death or injury. These exceptions are as follows:

Injuries caused by the negligence of a public employee while operating an automobile within the scope of their employment.
Injuries caused by the condition of a public property. This is when the premises is in a dangerous condition at the time of injury. The dangerous condition must have been created by a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm and be the type of injury that the victim actually suffered. The employees had to have actual or constructive notice of the condition with sufficient time to protect the victim but failed to do so.

Municipal City Governments Only Get Partial Immunity

State governments get full 100% immunity when they don’t carve out an exception for themselves. Cities are not so lucky. Municipalities only get sovereign immunity when they are conducting a “governmental function.” Richardson v. City of St. Louis, 293 S.W.3d 133,136-37 (Mo.App. 2009). Cities do not get immunity when they are merely providing a “proprietary function.” Crouch v. City of Kansas City, 444 S.W.3d 517,521 (Mo.App. WD 2014). This means a wrongful death or injury victim can sue a city if its negligent act was a proprietary function.

What Is a “Governmental” vs. “Proprietary” Function?

The distinction between a governmental function and a proprietary function for a wrongful death or a personal injury case against a city is the difference between you being able to have your lawsuit and collect money compensation and not having a lawsuit at all. The courts are highly inconsistent in making the distinction between governmental and proprietary functions. Jones v. State Hwy. Comm’n, 557 S.W.2d 225,229 (Mo. banc 1977). Worse, they even produce “uneven and unequal results which defy understanding.” Id.

Courts look to the nature of what the government is doing at the time it caused the injury to determine whether it is a governmental or a proprietary function. Courts look at what that government person was actually doing that caused the injury and why they were doing it. St. Joseph’s Light & Power Co. v. Kaw Valley Tunneling Inc., 589 S.W.2d 267 (Mo. banc 1979). The type of lawsuit does not matter.

When Is It a “Governmental Function?”

A governmental function that will allow the city to claim immunity from a wrongful death lawsuit or a personal injury claim will focus on whether the person doing the act was an agent of the state government. Bennartz v. City of Columbia, 300 S.W.3d, 259 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009). Look to who they were benefiting.

Were they benefiting the general public?
Were they benefiting the common good of all?
Was the person keeping the peace by enforcing laws and ordinances?
Was the person preserving public health?

Kunzie v. City of Olivette, 184 S.W.3d 574 (Mo. banc 2006); Parish v. Novus Equities Co., 231 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. App. 2007).

The city can claim immunity and dismiss your lawsuit if it can convince the court it was acting merely as an agent of the state government for the functions outlined above. It will claim that no exception is outlined in Mo. Stat. § 537.600 or anywhere else. The city will move to get a dismissal of your wrongful death or personal injury case.

What is a “Proprietary” Function?

A proprietary function does not have sovereign immunity. The city can be sued for merely providing a proprietary function that injures or kills. These functions are those that benefit or profit the municipality itself in its corporate capacity. In other words, they benefit or provide services or convenience to the city’s individual citizens.

Lawyers: Do Not Forget This!

A lawyer bringing a wrongful death or a personal injury case against a city municipal government must remember; governmental sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense. Do not merely file your petition like normal and wait for an affirmative defense to be pled out under Rule 55.27. You will have your petition dismissed.

The victim has a requirement that they must plead, not only allegations of the waiver of sovereign immunity, but also the specific facts that give the victim the exception to sovereign immunity. Richardson v. City of St. Louis, 293 S.W.3d 133,137 (Mo.App. 2009). It is the victim’s burden to demonstrate that the city government was engaged in a proprietary function at the time that the person was wrongfully killed or injured. Cover this in advance before you get a motion to dismiss.

Conclusion

One can see from the case of Ms. Johnson that there is a vast difference between claims made for extravasation, wrongful death, personal injury, and other situations based upon the type of hospital or medical care provider that did the error. City hospitals may have partial immunity. State hospitals may have complete immunity. The specific but critical distinction must be prepared for and covered in advance.

Author:

Matt Hamilton of Hamilton & Associates, Lawyers

Juris Doctor
Trial Attorney

When Should I Lie to My Lawyer?

Posted on December 12, 2018December 12, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

Trial attorney Matt Hamilton explains the reasons, advantages, disadvantages, and issues that arise from the common occurrence of a client who lies to their own attorney.

The common reasons are explained. The repercussions of the lies on litigation, and case value are explored.

This is a good investment of time for any victim considering telling a lie to their lawyer. It is good knowledge for any attorney practicing in wrongful death, personal injury, or criminal defense; basically, any field where client interaction is high and the stakes are great.

Matt Hamilton

Juris Doctor
Trial Attorney

6 Silly Things People Do in Court

Posted on November 27, 2018November 27, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

Personal injury trial attorney Matt Hamilton teaches the six silliest mistakes he sees people make in court.

Matt explains each mistake, why the error harms the person’s chances in court, and how each mistake can be avoided, or corrected.

Author:

Matt Hamilton

Trial Attorney
Juris Doctor

Are You Over Paying for your Accident Lawyer? [Analysis of Fees]

Posted on November 8, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

HOW MUCH SHOULD YOUR ACCIDENT LAWYER COST?

We have to pay for things every day. Plumbing breaks. Electricity fizzles in houses. Luckily, most of us do not experience frequent injury accidents. Handling injury accidents requires the expertise of an injury accident lawyer. Accident attorneys do not volunteer, but are paid. This article informs on how these lawyers are paid, the amounts, what is, and what is not reasonable.

THE OPTIONS: CONTINGENCY FEE VS. ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS VS. HOURLY

The Hourly Rate Method of Paying a Lawyer

There are three main ways on which attorneys are paid. The most common is an hourly rate. Hourly rates are determined by the amount per hour the attorney charges and the amount of time he spends. The more he works, the more you pay. Hourly attorneys will keep detailed records of exactly what they are doing and how long they are spending on a particular task. You should receive a monthly statement. That monthly statement will indicate the hourly rate and break down (typically in six minute intervals) what the attorney was doing and why he was doing it.

Rates for attorneys vary between $150 per hour and $500 per hour. How much an attorney charges hourly is based entirely upon what people will pay for his services. Shopping around can save significant money here. However, remember, the best attorneys are paid more for a reason. It is often financially better to hire the more expensive attorney and get the better result.

Remember also, you are paying the attorney for keeping close track of his time, which will be included in the hourly fee. Hourly pay is common for attorneys and clients who regularly work together. It is common for an hourly attorney to require a “retainer; an amount of money paid in advance to put towards the hourly fee.

Paying through an Attorney’s Fee Award Case

Sometimes you do not have to directly pay the lawyer at all. Certain types of cases (like vexatious refusal to pay by insurance) carry with them awards of attorney fees. This means at the end of the case, if you win, the other side pays for your attorney’s fees.

One would want to check with their particular jurisdiction and particular case type to determine whether an attorney’s fee awards can be expected. Few cases invoke statutes where attorney’s fees are mandated.

You should be able to understand the contract your own lawyer gives you. The vast majority of contingency fee lawyers contracts are pages long, with lots of fine print. Many have “tiered” results, with different payment amounts being paid based upon how far the legal claim proceeds. This, however, is unnecessary. For example, the contingency fee contracts my offices uses for personal injury and wrongful death cases, contains ONLY the following language:

I, We, _____________, hereby employ Matt Hamilton, Hamilton & Associates, Lawyers as my attorney to represent me in my claim against _________________, and all other persons considered liable by said attorney for personal injuries sustained by me on the ______ day of ________. It is agreed that said attorney shall receive ______ percent of whatever is realized on said claim for his services. Client agrees to pay for expenses incurred in pursuing the claim. Signed ______________.

Sometimes, simpler is better.

The British System Versus the American System of Paying Lawyers

There is an old philosophical difference between British law and American law. In the British model, the losing side always pays for the other person’s attorney’s fees. In the American model, typically each party (whether they win or lose) pays for their own attorney’s fees. The American model is preferred because it gives an advantage to the ordinary person who is the victim. Often, corporations will pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to their attorney. This would mean that a person simply could not afford to take the risk of suing a large corporation and incur that level of expense under the British model.

Paying the Lawyers through a Contingency Fee

The contingency fee is the most common reimbursement for accident injury lawsuits. The contingency fee is governed by state law. In it, the attorney takes a percentage of the win; however large or small that may be. The attorney takes a considerable risk by fronting the expenses. He advances his efforts in hopes of winning. If the case loses, the attorney gets nothing, and loses his cost and time. If the case wins, the attorney gets a generous reward. Each attorney must take multiple cases in order to justify the risk of being paid through a contingency fee.

Complaints About High Pay Low Effort Contingency Fees

Sometimes clients complain about the generosity of contingency fee versus the amount of time their attorney has spent on it. This attitude presumes all cases will win. It also does not take in account the risks and efforts of the attorney. Lastly, there is the considerable time, training, and monetary investment for the attorney to get his skills to the level to allow for victory.

Contingency Fees are Sometimes Prohibited

Rule 4-1.5 (c) and Rule 4-1.5 (d) of the Supreme Court of Missouri prohibits contingency fees in certain types of cases. For example, family law and divorce cases cannot have contingency fees.

How Long is the Attorney Required to Work on a Contingency Fee Case?

The Supreme Court of Missouri in the case of In re Crews, 159 S.W. 3d 355 (Mo. 2005) speaks to this issue. The Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that it is presumed in an attorney contingency fee agreement that the attorney must represent that party through judgment.

This means if an appeal should be attempted after a judgment, a separate agreement should be reached. Naturally, contingency fee agreements are creatures of contract. The parties can agree to whatever specifics they may want if it expressed in the contract.

When is an Attorney’s Fee Unfair?

The Missouri Supreme Court in the case of Murphy v. Dalton, 314 S.W. 2d 726, 733 (Mo. 1958), spoke to the issue of fairness in contingency fee contracts. These include injury cases and accident cases. In Murphy, the Supreme Court ordered that every contingency fee contract must be viewed from the point and time and under the circumstances of the parties at the time of the execution of the contract. This means if circumstances later change, that does not matter. If certainty or uncertainty change later on that is not taken into account.

Neither the attorney nor the client can view in retrospect (after the fact) regarding the success or failure of the case to determine whether the contingency fee is reasonable. For example, if both parties are expecting long and drawn out litigation, a jury trial, and perhaps even an appeal, and signed a large contingency fee, the attorney cannot later complain. On the opposite side of the scale, if the case settles after a simple one page demand letter, the client can no longer complain. If ten years or fifteen years of litigation ensues and hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses are incurred the attorney cannot later complain that he should have been paid more. The reasonableness of a contingency fee is taken at the time that the paper is signed.

WHAT ARE TYPICAL CONTINGENCY FEE AMOUNTS?

Like stairs, contingency fee amounts typically go up in steps.

Thirty Three Percent (33%) Contingency Fees

A one third contingency fee was once common and nearly ubiquitous. Almost all accident and injury lawsuits were signed up for a one third contingency fee. This was through the mid-90s. The philosophy was that one third went to the lawyer, one third went to the victim, and one third paid for past medical and other expenses.

In practice, this was never true. Some cases had large values and required small amounts of work. Other cases presented large amounts of work and small value. “Tort Reform” in the early 2000s vastly increased the cost of doing litigation and increased the cost of making claims for innocent victims. Many attorneys went out of business. The surviving law firms had to change, adapt, and improve, just to make less money. The cost of bringing lawsuits increased substantially. More experts are now needed. This requires greater expenses. One third contingency fees are still common. However, do not expect to get that amount as an offer from the attorney. Those are only when competition is high or the value of the case is high with little work.

Forty Percent (40%) Contingency Fees

Forty percent of the total take on the case (not counting expenses) is common nowadays. This accounts for the increased cost and expertise needed to be victorious in litigation.

Forty Five Percent (45%) Contingency Fees and Higher

Contingency fee agreements where the attorney takes forty-five percent or more of the take are uncommon. Typically, one will see this in strict product liability product defect cases and manufacturing defect cases. Medical malpractice and other professional liability cases also can carry contingency fee agreements of this high percentage. These higher fees are to offset the increased litigation costs (sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars) and the risky of the case.

WHY SHOULD I PAY SO MUCH FOR A CONTINGENCY FEE LAWYER?

There is an old expression as a joke for divorces. The joke goes; “Why are divorces so expensive? Because they are worth it.” The opposite is true (with the same rational) in contingency fee cases. Simply put, the client gets more money at the end of the case, does less work, and has fewer headaches on average with a competent contingency fee lawyer working on their case compared to handling it on their own. High priced contingency fee lawyers tend to get better results and tend to get more money for their clients. In short, contingency fees are expensive because they are worth the investment.

Author:

Matt Hamilton of Hamilton & Associates, Lawyers

Juris Doctor
Trial Attorney

Five Reasons Why Insurance Companies Do Not Fairly Pay Accident Claims

Posted on October 18, 2018October 18, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

FIVE REASONS WHY INSURANCE COMPANIES DO NOT FAIRLY PAY ACCIDENT CLAIMS

You always do the right thing when making decisions, right? You are always fair minded and generous to people who are less powerful and in a vulnerable position, right? People are generally decent, right? Why is it, then, that insurance companies employing otherwise reasonable, fair-minded people do not give fair-minded value to the claims of innocent victims? This article reveals five reasons why systematic undervaluing of insurance cases occurs.

A MONEY MAKING ENTERPRISE

An overlooked motivating factor for low payouts on injury cases is our capitalist system for the insurance company. Corporations are entities, even referred to at times as “persons.” Insurance company corporations have one goal above all others: to make the maximum amount of money for their owners. Their owners are (typically) stock owners who pay money for stock shares and expect more money in return by way of dividends or increased stock value. From the executive desk of the president down to common employees, this money motivating factor colors all decisions of businesses. Insurance companies are no exception.

Insurance companies make money by charging their customers premiums. They also make money from investing the money that is given to them and making dividends or profits on that money. Insurers maximize profit by minimizing their expenses. Paying money for insurance claims is a large expense of an insurance company. The less that is paid out, the more money for their owners (the stockholders).

Insurance companies will deny paying more in payouts when the investment market is expected to do a down turn versus when money is to be made. However, in our experience, insurance companies do pay out differently for tax reasons, market force reasons, and investment timing. One way or the other, capitalism, money, and timing influence the fair value by which insurers assess to your case.

INSURER DELAY MEANS INSURER MONEY

You may notice the larger the insurance claim, the more time, procrastination, and delay the victim will experience. This is no coincidence. Remember, insurance companies do not handle just your claim. Insurers handle tens or thousands of claims at any one time. With any large population, emergencies for some claimants will occur. Financial troubles will crop up for some claimants. Some claimants merely drop out because of exhaustion. This means that the longer an insurance company can delay a claim, the more people will drop out for various reasons that are personal to each person.

Even claimants that do not drop out, may take less than the full value of their case for similar personal reasons. Some people merely get into a situation where they are desperate for money and will take whatever is offered. The longer the delay, the more likely this is.

We talked in reason number one (above) about how insurers make money from investments. Remember, the longer the delay in paying you, the more time the insurance company has to invest the money that the insurer would have otherwise given you. Simply put, delay pays.

THE DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY

We all feel guilt and negative emotions over decisions which harm others. Nobody wants to be the “bad guy.” We all like to point to the other person and say they are the “bad guy.” Others will say they simply were one piece in the cog of a big machine and did not make the final decision. This diffusion of responsibility is the genesis of many injustices perpetrated by insurance companies.

Remember, it is often the case that insurance claims are handled by many people. If not just one person makes a bad decision; it is a group decision. Guilt is diffused and can be blamed on others. The executive office can order managers who can then blame the executives. The managers can order employees who can then blame the managers. Employees are large in number and can blame each other. One way or the other, if no one person is at fault, no one person bears all the guilt. This diffusion of responsibility is one way in which innocent victims with the insurance claims suffer further injustice through an unfair evaluation or a complete failure to pay a rightful claim.

Natural Selection in favor of Unfair Insurance Employees

Please also note there is a natural selection issue with respect to insurance companies. Each employee will have employment responsibilities and guidelines. It is often the case that an employee gets better evaluations and a superior work relationship when the employee makes more money for their corporation.

Employees that lose money for their company tend to be fired. In an insurance situation, this means the less money is paid out to otherwise rightful claims; the more money the insurance company makes; the better the employee is viewed. I have personally seen this attitude in my insurance adjuster acquaintances. These are people that are otherwise good, well meaning, and have the victim in mind. They simply get overwhelmed by the money and the desire to please their bosses.

A DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OPINIONS

We all value our own family, our own friends, our own possessions and pets more than other people value them. Each of us has a personal affinity for the things closest to us. This creates a natural bias when those things are lost. The death of your own pet is more important to you than the death of a stranger’s pet.

So too is it true with injury accident claims. Your pain, your suffering, the accident’s effect on your life is more meaningful and valuable to you than a stranger. This results in claims adjusters at insurance companies who simply don’t share your value for your suffering as a victim. Therefore, insurance offers are made valuing an average payout rather than your particular experience.

Computers Affect Accident Claim Value

Computers are also the enemy of value! Many insurance companies have specific proprietary programs, such as Colossus, originally made for Insurance. These computer programs place values on many claims. Like all computer programs, they make mistakes and are imperfect. Insurance claim computers may simply fail to take into account all your particular circumstances. Remember, these computers were built and paid for to save insurance companies money. Their primary goal was not justice for an accident victim.

TOO FEW VALUE HEROES

Full value of case is often reached only after attorneys are hired, litigation is handled, a jury trial ensues, and a decision is given. Sometimes there is even an appeal! With so few people taking the full journey, accident claim values overall go down. This means even the few people that do go the distance see higher costs and less money in the end because they must make the added effort to “blaze the trail.”

It is understandable to identify with the people who take the money for less than full value. We all have stress in our lives. Few are highly experienced at insurance injury claims. We all want the pride of handling a claim ourselves. Unfortunately, this also tends to result in lower values for the claim. So many drop outs create a bias on the part of those who pay the claims (the insurance companies and lawyers). Insurers get accustomed to their own victories. The failure of large numbers of people forcing full accident claim values creates an average value payout that is less than reasonable.

I hope these five reasons have informed you. Others exist. None of them are equally important. However, remember that your decisions will also affect the justice that others will receive in the future. Good luck!

Author:

Matt Hamilton of Hamilton & Associates, Lawyers

Juris Doctor
Trial Attorney

Belton Auto Accident Attorney – How Personal Injury Testimony is Analyzed by Insurance Companies – Exemplar Letter

Posted on March 24, 2011April 13, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

Belton personal injury attorneys will find the following document of assistance in preparing lawsuit strategies for Cass County auto accident lawsuits. Names and identifying information have been changed to protect the identity and privacy of those mentioned.

Belton auto accident analysis by lawyers will benefit from learning the investigation, analysis and strategies employed by insurance companies.

March 2, 2011

VIA INTERNET E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Keith E. Lees

Litigation Claim Representative

CASS COUNTY INSURANCE GROUP

Harrisonville Personal Lines

P.O. Box 68451

Belton, Missouri 65201

Keith.Lees@thebeltoninsurer.com

Re: Case Style: West, Michelle v. Ratcliffe, Theodora

Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri at Harrisonville

Case No.: 00-CV-220007,.

Claim No.: 543 AL 54777

Our File: 06235-27526

Dear Mr. Lees:

Our Belton personal injury lawyer had an opportunity to take the deposition of Plaintiff Michelle West in the above-referenced Belton auto accident. Also, plaintiff’s Lee’s Summit auto accident lawyer has taken the deposition of Defendant Theadora Ratcliffe. This correspondence sets out a summary and our analysis of their depositions for your review.

MICHELLE WEST

Belton Auto Accident Personal Injury Plaintiff

Michelle West is a slightly overweight fifty year old single woman. She comes across as honest, forthright and generally pleasant. She will make an average witness before a Cass County Circuit Court jury.

Ms. West lives in Belton, Missouri. She was a postal employee delivering the mail and a construction worker operating machines outdoors for many years. Presently, she works at Answer, an answering service located in Raymore, Missouri. Plaintiff has a history of depression but testified that she has not been depressed for approximately one year and has not needed her anti-depressant medication. She denies ever having back pain or other significant medical problems before the Belton auto accident in this case.

Ms. West claims that on March 18, 2009, she was attending a wake for a friend at Carson Funeral Home in Belton, Missouri. After the wake, Ms. West was exiting the funeral home with Norma Beck, Lana Pratt, Sandy Leroy and Barbara Crown. She remembers crossing the parking lot and hearing her friend, Sandy Leroy, screaming “look out.” When Ms. West looked, she saw Ms. Ratcliffe’s automobile just a few feet from her. Ms. West tried to avoid the automobile, was unable to do so and was struck by its back passenger side bumper. She could not estimate the automobile’s speed. The contact knocked her off the ground and back onto the asphalt parking lot. At first, Ms. West thought that she had not received personal injury. However, she quickly discovered that she was unable to get up. She does not remember experiencing pain at the time. Ms. West remembers one of her friends holding her head and praying for her until the ambulance arrived.

At Belton Research hospital, Ms. West was treated for a lower back injury, a broken front tooth, a deep 2.5 centimeter cut to her chin and a substantial skin wound to her face. While at the Belton hospital, the plaintiff remembers experiencing generalized pain in her mouth, face, legs, knees, pelvis, neck, lower back and foot. Ms. West stated that she had scabbing over a large potion of her face during her stay at the Belton hospital. She believes that her physicians failed to diagnose her facial tattooing during her hospital stay because of the scabs that covered the tattooed area. During her stay at Belton hospital, the plaintiff stated she had trouble moving her mouth and jaw to the extent that a dentist had to adjust it. The dentist also repaired her broken front tooth. After seven days at the hospital, she was released to go home.

Ms. West walked with the use of a walker for two months after her release from the hospital because of the pain in her knees and lower back. She had friends come over to help her cook and clean during that time because of her limited ability to move. Thereafter, the Belton auto accident victim walked with a cane for approximately four months. When the plaintiff began using a cane to walk, she returned to work. She switched to the night shift at Answer so that she could take more breaks because of fatigue. The plaintiff did not experience a change in her rate of pay as a result of this change in working shifts. She claims to have lost nearly eight weeks of work because of personal injury from the Belton auto accident.

Plaintiff claims and appears to have facial tattooing on her left check just above her mouth. To reduce the tattooing, she has had several hydroquinone treatments to bleach her skin. She claims her doctors recommend that she undergo laser facial surgery, which will treat her facial tattooing as it stands.

Plaintiff claims that she needs to attend physical therapy every few months to keep her body from experiencing pain in her lower back. Ms. West testified that she has little or no remaining nerve damage to her face. She claims that the affected area of her cheek only “feels funny.”

THEADORA RATCLIFFE

Belton Auto Accident Personal Injury Defendant

Theadora Ratcliffe is a 78 year old woman of average build and appearance. She comes across as pleasant, honest and forthright. She can, however, be defensive at times and needs to be reminded to remain calm. She will make an average witness before a Cass County Circuit Court jury.

Ms. Ratcliffe lives by herself at her home in Belton, Missouri. She does not know the plaintiff. On March 18, 2009, she attended the wake of her sister-in-law Kathleen Pihr. Ms. Ratcliffe parallel parked her 1999 Lincoln Continental on the street right next to the entrance to the parking lot of the funeral home. (Exhibit “1,” attached hereto). The wake ended at approximately 7:30 p.m.. Ms. Ratcliffe walked to her car alone and waited to give her daughter a ride to Ms. Ratcliffe’s home.

After waiting a short amount of time, Ms. Ratcliffe attempted to back her car into the parking lot to pick up her daughter. She got in her car, started the engine and looked back to see if anyone was behind her. Seeing no one, she backed the car into the parking lot to take the car to where her daughter was located. At this point, Ms. Ratcliffe remembers that the car’s motor started racing and began to move at an even speed backwards. She estimates the car’s speed at five miles per hour. She repeatedly tried to apply the brakes; however, the automobile did not stop until it caused the auto accident with the corner wall of Carson Funeral Home. She did not realize that her automobile had contacted the plaintiff.

Neither Belton Municipal Court nor the Cass County Sheriff’s Department issued Ms. Ratcliffe a traffic ticket for this Belton auto accident, in spite of the personal injury. Therefore, no Belton criminal defense lawyer was retained.

Ms. Ratcliffe saw the plaintiff lying on the pavement to the side of where her car had passed when she got out of her car. She stated “I was just beside myself,” meaning that she was shocked and worried, when she saw the plaintiff. Ms. Ratcliffe stated she began shaking and “couldn’t hardly talk” because she was worrying about the condition of the plaintiff. Ms. Ratcliffe received a small bump on her head from hitting the steering wheel when her car had its auto accident with the funeral home. She requested no personal injury or medical treatment. Ms. Ratcliffe regularly checked on the plaintiff’s condition while the plaintiff was in the hospital. Upon advice from her family, she never personally contacted the plaintiff.

FURTHER HANDLING

OF THIS BELTON AUTO ACCIDENT

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM

The plaintiff presently claims past medical expenses of $19,846.98. The medical expenses arise from her stay at Belton Research Hospital, her physical therapy, cosmetic treatment for her facial tattooing, dental care, ambulance service, repairs to her eyeglasses, and a small amount of pain medication. She claims $4,025.00 in future medical expenses for cosmetic surgery to treat her claimed facial tattooing. She claims $2,410.89 for the seven weeks of work she allegedly missed. Her total special damages amount to $26,282.87. This amount does not include any personal injury damages she may receive for her pain and suffering, future physical therapy, any lingering discoloration to her face or the alleged nerve damage to her left cheek.

Our Lee’s Summit auto accident lawyer took her deposition. When the plaintiff testified in her deposition, she did not give the impression that she was exaggerating her personal injury medical claims. The facial tattooing was visible at a distance. It is also appears that she has nerve damage to the left portion of her face. Specifically, it appears as though the left corner of her mouth and that area of her cheek hang slightly lower and do not react to her facial movements as the right side of her face does.

The medical review completed for us by Doctor Benson indicates that the auto accident personal injury to her lower back is more of a degenerative long term condition as opposed to a traumatic injury caused only by the car accident in this case. However, there is no evidence as the present time indicating that Ms. West had trouble with her back before this Belton auto accident. The condition in her lower back may simply be a long term degenerative condition that showed its symptoms only after the plaintiff was struck by our client. Overall, the plaintiff will likely make a sympathetic and believable witness to a Cass County Circuit Court jury. With the special damages she claims, which appear to be for the most part reasonable for the personal injuries, the verdict range could easily be in the $50,000.00 to $75,000.00 range. While we could attack the claimed need for laser surgery on the basis of the lack of notation of facial tattooing in her medical records while in the hospital, her explanation seems logical. Regardless, even if you eliminate the future charge for that future procedure, she still has specials of about $22,000.00. This being a liability case, I suggest we begin negotiations and try to save something off of your limits.

As always, we will continue to keep you advised of significant events as they occur. If you have any questions or if we can help in any manner, please feel free to contact our offices.

Very truly yours,

Matt Hamilton, Belton personal injury lawyer

matthamilton@law-kc.com

Enclosure

MJH/ # 735659

Harrisonville Missouri Auto Accident – Attorney Analysis of Witness Statements to Insurance Company

Posted on March 5, 2011April 13, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

This is an example of an insurance company interview analysis. The names and some facts have been changed to protect the privacy of the people and companies involved. Reading this will assist a personal injury auto accident attorney or automobile accident victim in knowing the point of view of an insurance company in analyzing witness and victim statement.

September 28, 2009

Ms. Joanne Frankhurst

The H_______ Insurance Company

P.O. Box 905

Harrisonville, MO 64701

Re: Kurst, Jerry and Judy v. Hart, Robert

Case No.: CV39-438 CC

Claim No.: 68 AL 8814 and 698 AL 8107

Our File No.: 0602-2571

Dear Ms. Frankhurst:

I have interviewed several parties that have provided information relevant to our investigation. Summaries of what has been discovered are as follows:

Personal Injury Auto Accident Defendant – Robert Hart

Mr. Hart is a long-time resident of Harrisonville, Missouri. For thirty-three years, Mr. Hart served as the postmaster of Raymore, MO before retiring in 1978. He is a decorated World War II veteran. Mr. Hart has never committed a crime and has no recent traffic violations.

Mr. Hart received the purple heart when a grenade took one of his eyes in World War II. The Department of Motor Automobiles does not consider Mr. Hart’s lost eye a handicap for driving purposes. He takes blood pressure medication, arthritis medication, and an aspirin a day. Mr. Hart’s arm shows shrapnel scars from a battle injury. It has never impaired his abilities. Mr. Hart had not consumed any intoxicants the day of the accident. He comes across as alert, intelligent and honest. He will make a good impression to a jury.

This Harrisonville, Missouri auto accident occurred on July 12, 2006 at 1:34 p.m. on King Hill Avenue. Mr. Hart was coming out of a Dairy Queen parking lot, the only Cass County business operating in the area at that time. There was a lot of traffic. From Mr. Hart’s view, a car was parked on the street immediately to the left and a van was parked to the right of the Dairy Queen’s exit. These factors caused Mr. Hart to put his signal on, wait two or three minutes, and then slowly pull out into the traffic. Mr. Hart repeatedly looked left, right and forward before pulling out. Further, he glanced forward within 30 seconds of pulling his car into the traffic and did not see another automobile.

The truck driven by the Kursts pulled up to a stop sign directly across from Mr. Hart while he was waiting to exit the Harrisonville Dairy Queen. Mr. Hart’s automobile was clearly within the view of the Kursts. The Kursts intended to cross the street and enter the Harrisonville, MO Dairy Queen parking lot. The auto accident occurred when the two automobiles attempted to cross King Hill Avenue at approximately the same time. The point of impact was on the driver’s side of the Kursts’ truck. It occurred just before the Kursts crossed the center line of King Hill Avenue. Due to the position of the roads, the Kursts’ automobile was turning slightly to the left when the auto accident occurred. Mr. Hart was turning to the right and may have entered the street first. Neither automobile was traveling over five miles per hour.

After the auto accident, Mr. Hart and the Kursts exchanged insurance company names in the Harrinsonville, Missouri Dairy Queen parking lot. Both automobiles suffered minor damage. Mr. Hart was not hurt. No emergency automobiles were called to the auto accident scene for either party. The police accident injury report indicates that two persons had personal injury. The Kursts refused medical treatment and, initially, did not appear injured. However, the Kursts began to complain of back and neck pain when the police arrived. Specifically, when the Harrisonville, Missouri police officer asked Mr. Kurst if he was hurt, Mr. Kurst hesitated, looked to his wife, and said to her “your back hurts, doesn’t it?” Mrs. Kurst hesitated as if she did not know what Mr. Kurst was talking about. Then, she stated that her back did hurt. There is no evidence that the Kursts were driving while intoxicated in this Harrisonville, Missouri auto accident.

Mr. Hart received a ticket for failing to yield at the auto accident scene. He plead guilty in the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri at Harrisonville. He did not have a Harrisonville criminal defense attorney at that time. Mr. Hart feels that he was not totally at fault in the Harrisonville automobile accident.

Witness – Eve Johnson

Eve Johnson lives in Harrisonville, Missouri. She was working in the Dairy Queen at the time of the automobile accident. She did not actually see the auto accident occur. However, she talked to the Kursts a few days after the accident and reports that they told her that they expected to “get some money” out of the wreck. She states that the Kursts were “O.K.” before the Harrisonville Municipal police arrived but started complaining of pain thereafter. She heard the Kursts cussing about the damage to their new truck. Eve believes that the Kursts are at least partially at fault for the Cass County personal injury auto accident.

Reputation witness – Tessa Johnson

Tessa Johnson is the daughter of Eve Johnson. They live and work at the Harrisonville Dairy Queen together. She did not witness the Cass County auto accident but knows the Kursts’ reputation for suing people in the area on questionable claims.

Witness – Sandy Grey

Sandy Grey was working at the Dairy Queen on July 12, 2006. She witnessed the Harrisonville automobile accident between the Kursts and Mr. Hart. We have contacted her and expect to take her statement in the near future.

It is my opinion a counterclaim should be filed on behalf of Mr. Hart for the property damage to his automobile. A possible theme for this case is that the plaintiffs were “cruising for a bruising” by using this minor incident to finance treatment for their preexisting medical problems.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on this case and will keep you updated as our investigation develops. If you have any questions or if I can help in any manner, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,

Matt Hamilton

Harrisonville, MO Personal Injury Auto Accident Attorney Resolves Cass County Lawsuit – the case study of Richards v. Carlson

Posted on February 27, 2011April 13, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

To: Casualty Claims Examiner

Insurance Group

6301 James A. Reed Road

Kansas City, Mo 64133-4775

May 1, 2009

Re: Jo Richards

Your Claim Number: 00-512796

Your Policy Number: 04-117-01

Your Insured: William Carlson

Date of Loss: November 18, 2005

Our Harrisonville, Missouri auto accident lawyers handled this case in response to a Lees Summit personal injury attorneys’ request concerning our position in regard to the auto accident personal injury suffered in the above referenced matter, the following was submitted.

CLAIMANT

Ms. Jo Ellen Richards was a 55 year old married Caucasian female who resided in a rural area just outside of and had an auto accident in Harrisonville, Missouri. She and Robert W. Richards had been married for 27 years. She was employed as a supervisor at a therapeutic group home for MBCH-CFM helping victims of injury auto accidents in Harrisonville, Missouri.

LOCATION AND TIME OF HARRISONVILLE, MISSOURI AUTO ACCIDENT

On November 18, 2005, at approximately 5:25 p.m., while on the way to her home after work, Mrs. Jo Ellen Richards sustained serious personal injury near Harrisonville, Missouri when a automobile she was driving on Highway YY about three (3) Miles West of Harrisonville, Missouri, was struck by the insured who had crossed the center line.

THEORY OF LIABILITY – NEGLIGENCE

Our Harrisonville, Missouri automobile accident attorneys determined liability in this car wreck was based upon statutory and common law negligence and particularly, the failure of Mr. Carlson to control his vehicle.

This Harrisonville automobile accident would not have happened had it not been for the drunken, reckless, careless and negligent operation of Mr. Carlson‘s vehicle. Mr. Carlson needed a Harrisonville, Missouri criminal defense attorney. He was charged with driving while intoxicated in Cass County Circuit Court. Mr. Carlson failed to observe traffic rules, crossed over the center lane and struck my client in the driver’s side door continuing down the left side, hooking into the left rear wheel well causing her vehicle to flip into the north ditch. Mr. Carlson was also charged with violating Missouri statute 565.060, which is felony assault in the second degree. This is a Class C felony criminal violation punishable by one to seven years of incarceration and up to $5,000.00 in fines in Cass County Circuit Court in Harrisonville, Missouri. This felony criminal violation alleged he caused serious personal injury in the auto accident while he was driving under the influence (DUI) in Harrisonville, MO. Mr. Carlson was intoxicated, inattentive and exhibited lack of control over his vehicle all of which contributed to the car accident, injuries and damages suffered by Mrs. Richards. He eventually plead guilty to this charge and served jail time in Cass County jail.

PERSONAL INJURIES AND PAIN AND SUFFERING

Our auto accident attorney in Harrisonville, MO alleged that as a result of Mr. Carlson’s negligent conduct, Mrs. Richards suffered the following injuries:

She has had and still has throbbing aching pain in her right wrist; she received a tearing in the scar tissue in her right breast which had to be replaced. She suffered and continues to suffer pain on the right side of her body to include her shoulder, neck, leg, ankle, knee, and back.

Fortunately, Mrs. Richards had received and continued to receive excellent medical care from Cass County Medical Center in Harrisonville, Missouri with the continuing expense and lifestyle disruption which was expected to continue for the rest of her life. However, this care had not corrected her physical condition to the level prior to the Cass County automobile accident which consequently had not allowed her to resume normal activities enjoyed prior to the accident. Our Cass County personal injury attorneys felt that because of complications directly arising out of the negligence of Mr. Carlson’s actions Ms. Richards should have been, under these circumstances, been compensated for her pain and suffering, hospitalization, medical bills, prescriptions and lost wages and other attendant damages. We contacted our associated who were Lees Summit automobile accident attorneys and they agreed.

Prior to November 18, 2005 Mrs. Richards had no health issues. She had not seen a doctor for other than routine annual exams at Cass County Medical Center in Harrisonville for several years. Even though she did not seek hospitalization at the time of the auto accident, the personal injury damages she sustained became immediately evident when she couldn’t sleep because of the pain. The next morning she went to the Emergency Room. From that day forward she had constantly lived in pain. One health issue had transgressed and developed into another to include diagnosis with Raynauds and MCTD. As she had no health issues prior to this Harrisonville, MO automobile accident, these subsequent diagnosis were the direct and proximate cause of the Cass County auto accident.

She is now required to have her heart, lungs, kidneys and liver examined every three to twelve months to check for ongoing damage. She is still suffering with excruciating chronic pain in her joints, muscles and nerves. She suffers from insomnia and has had to take numerous medications for stabilization of this pain. She is now considered “high risk” and suffers from a suppressed immune system.

Our Harrisonville, MO personal injury attorney submitted a list of expenses/damages due to the injuries sustained by Ms. Richards which arose out of the Cass County, MO automobile accident. The impact which occurred on November 18, 2005 caused serious personal injuries to Mrs. Richards and she had suffered and will continue to suffer ongoing current pain as well as future pain and suffering as a result of your insured’s unlawful conduct.

Set forth below were Mrs. Richards’s itemized damages:

SPECIALS

1. Miami County Medical Center $1,332.50

2. Louisberg Family Care/Dyck $ 252.00

3. Miami County Medical Center $3,311.40

4. Neurology Consultant/Ryan $795.00

5. Olathe Medical Center/Miami/Nosti $5,133.90

6. Olathe Medical Center/Stallard $427.00

7. United Imaging $486.99

8. Humana/Fishman $1,500.00

9. Kansas Orthopedic Specialists/Wilkinson $5,035.05

10. Miami County Medical Center $8,458.10

11. SERC $1,205.00

12. Dr. Newman $658.75

13. Dr. Williams/Anesthesia $384.00

14. Dr. Sneed $ 3,050.95

15. Dr. Nosti/Implant Removal $17,493.73

16. Pharmaceuticals $5,194.51

17. Mileage/796 MILES @ .485 $4,846.00

18. Lost Work Time $11,847.36

19. Vehicle Loss $18,102.00

20. Rental Car/Enterprise $246.05

1a. Dr. Fessenden $3,970.70

2a. Dr. Ruhlman $ 9,859.75

3a. LABCORP $373.00

4a. Dr. Davoren $ 9, l55.60

TOTAL $112,219.34

PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Our Harrisonville, Missouri personal injury lawyer, in evaluating this case, took into consideration the fact that Mrs. Richards was a physically active working lady. She had endured the pain and suffering as a result of the trauma to the right side of her body to include her right breast, shoulder, neck, leg, ankle, knee, and back. Lastly she and her husband had suffered a severe set back in their intimate relationship as a result of the trauma brought on by Mr. Carlson’s car accident negligence and Cass County criminal behavior.

Moreover, our Harrisonville accident lawyers took into consideration the fact that not only was the liability unchallengeable as were her $112,219.34 in specials, it caused our Harrisonville lawyers and Lees Summit injury attorneys to believe that Mrs. Richards would expect a substantial jury award in the event this case is tried in Cass County Circuit Court in Harrisonville, Missouri. Accordingly, our Harrisonville accident lawyers concluded that Mrs. Richards’s case has a settlement value in the neighborhood of $325,000.00.

We posted our Harrisonville law firm’s calendar for thirty (30) days from the date of our demand letter so as to give the insurance company sufficient time within which to review and consider our Cass County injury lawyers’ demand, during which time no action was brought on behalf of Mrs. Richards. If our accident lawyers did not hear from the insurance company within that time with a view toward settlement, suit would be filed forthwith.

Our auto accident personal injury lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri at Harrisonville. The Honorable Jacqueline Cook, Cass County’s Presiding Judge oversaw the matter. The case was referred for Pleasant Hill auto accident attorney Matt Hamilton to handle. He and his Cass County personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiff and reached the settlement that was demanded where other attorneys had failed.

Cass County Missouri Personal Injury Auto Accident Attorney – Body of Petition for Damages – Anderson v. Carlson

Posted on February 22, 2011March 30, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

PETITION FOR DAMAGES

COUNT I

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Johnny R. Anderson, and for his Cass County, Missouri personal injury cause of action against Defendant, Benjamin Carlson, alleges and states as follows:

Plaintiff Johnny R. Anderson is a resident of and represented by personal injury attorneys in Harrisonville, Cass County, Missouri; Defendant Benjamin Carlson is a resident of and represented by criminal defense attorneys in Belton, Cass County, Missouri; the Cass County, Missouri auto accident giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Cedar County, Missouri.
That at all times herein mentioned Missouri Highway 54 is a public street and thoroughfare in the State of Missouri, and in Cass County, Missouri, where the automobile accident occurred.
That on or about July 15, 2003, Plaintiff was operating his 1994 Ford Tempo traveling in a westerly direction on Missouri Highway 54. That Defendant Benjamin Carlson was operating his 1995 Buick automobile in an easterly direction; that Defendant Carlson operated his vehicle in a way that caused a Cass County, Missouri car accident with the vehicle being driven by Plaintiff Johnny R. Anderson.
Defendant Benjamin Carlson drove his vehicle in a careless and reckless manner by allowing it to cross the centerline and coming into collision with Plaintiff’s lawfully operated motor vehicle.
Defendant Benjamin Carlson needed a Cass County Missouri criminal defense attorney because he failed to exercise the highest degree of care in the operation of his motor vehicle and was negligent in the following particulars.
Defendant got a Harrisonville Missouri traffic ticket because he operated his motor vehicle at an excessive rate of speed.
Defendant operated his motor vehicle without keeping a good and proper lookout for other cars on the roadway, including Plaintiff thereby receiving a Belton Municipal Court traffic ticket.
Defendant failed to sound a signal of warning and was cited for a Lees Summit Municipal Court traffic ticket.
Defendant failed to swerve or slacken his speed and thereby avoid coming into collision with the vehicle being driven by Plaintiff and needed a Lees Summit criminal defense attorney.
Defendant operated his vehicle in a manner that allowed it to cross the centerline into the lane reserved for traffic going in the direction of Plaintiff Johnny R. Anderson and thereby causing the Raymore personal injury auto accident.
Defendant failed to operate his motor vehicle as far as practical to the right hand side of the roadway thereby deserving a Belton Municipal Court traffic ticket.
That the above and foregoing acts of negligence of Defendant were the proximate cause of the Cass County personal injury car accident between Defendant’s motor vehicle and Plaintiff’s motor vehicle and was the proximate cause of damages and personal injuries suffered by Plaintiff Johnny R. Anderson.
Plaintiff has sustained Lees Summit personal injuries in the following respects: Plaintiff has incurred large expenses for hospitalization, doctors, medicine, and other medical care and plaintiff will in the future during his lifetime continue to receive such treatment for his condition; Plaintiff has received personal injuries that have caused him to miss time from work and has lost wages and earnings because of said conditions, and will in the future continue to lose earnings and wages because of his personal injuries. Plaintiff has suffered Cass County, Missouri personal injuries to his spinal column, body, and head, and in particular, bruises, contusions, sprains, strains, abrasions, tears and injuries to the muscles, bones, ligaments, tendons and tissues connected thereto. Plaintiff has suffered pain, spasms, discomfort, insomnia and mental anguish, and will in the future continue all of the aforementioned conditions. Plaintiff has balance problems due to vertigo and tendinitis, and that said conditions continue and will continue into the future. Plaintiff has sustained property damage to his motor vehicle.
That on September 8, 2004, pursuant to RSMo. 408.040 demand for settlement was made on Defendant’s insurance company by registered mail, a copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference. That said demand was rejected by Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in his favor in an amount as determined by judge and jury, and for prejudgment interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from November 8, 2004, and thereafter and for his costs herein incurred.

Belton personal injury auto accident attorney gets maximum compensation for car crash – Veronica Neill v Alyssa Patton

Posted on February 18, 2011March 30, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

RE: The Insured: Alyssa L. “Patton”

Date of Loss: January 15, 2010

Our Belton Raymore personal injury law firm represented Veronica “Neill” in her claims against an insured. Our Harrisonville personal injury auto accident victim demanded settlement in the amount of $400,000.00 or the total of the insured’s policy coverage, including any umbrella coverage, if any, to satisfy her claims against Ms. Patton and her Insurance Company. Our best personal injury attorneys in Lees Summit at www.lees-summit-attorney.com reviewed this case and agreed. In the event that the insured’s limits were less than our demand, we gave her insurance company this opportunity to protect its insured by settling for money that will not take her personal assets.

I attached a copy of the Belton Municipal Court Police Report for your review. This Belton injury auto accident occurred on January 15, 2010 at 7:33 a.m. on Highway 7 southbound in Pleasant Hill, Cass County, Missouri. It is a thirty-five (35) mile per hour speed zone. The insured was driving her 1994 Oldsmobile Cutless south on Highway 7 traveling at least the speed limit. The victim Veronica Neill was ahead of the insured (to the south) and was stopped in traffic waiting for a school bus to load students. There were normal traffic conditions. It was daylight, but cloudy so the sun was not in her eyes. The road was asphalt with no items to obscure her vision. The school bus also had its signal on for traffic to stop on this straight and level highway. It appears the insured simply did not see the situation and crashed her vehicle into the rear of Ms. Neill. Ms. Neill needed a Cass County Circuit Court criminal defense attorney. She received a traffic ticket in Belton Municipal Court.

The witness at the scene, Michelle Jones, also indicated that the insured crashed her vehicle into the rear of Ms. Neill, who was stopped for the school bus and the school children.

The victim Veronica Neill’s primary injury is “whiplash” type soft tissue Belton auto accident personal injury damage to her back. Specifically, her medical treatment providers indicated personal injury to her posterior scalp, posterior neck and C-spine. They also indicated injuries to the upper portion of her face, her right scapular area, her left scapular area, lower back and the dorsum of her right hand. Specifically regarding her back, she continued to exhibit cervical radiculopathy indicative of a disc impinging upon a nerve. Her medical treatment providers through a CT scan of her cervical spine also indicated cervical kyphosis centered at the C4-C5 vertebra. Ms. Neill was exhibiting the types of disabilities, pain, and limitations one would expect for this type of Belton auto accident personal injury.

Ms. Neill hired our best Cass County Missouri personal injury attorneys to represent her. She felt she needed a Belton auto accident lawyer and trusted our Pleasant Hill, Missouri law firm.

I enclosed copies of her medical records and bills for their review. Ms. Neill had incurred $112,748.00 in medical expenses which had not been paid for by health insurance.

Veronica Neill had $1,412.50 in employment loss. I enclosed documents signed by her various employers specifying and setting out her losses to date.

Our offer remained open until July 9, 2010. It was withdrawn and not reopened after that date. We filed suit on July 16, 2010. We eventually received a Cass County jury verdict in our favor. Our Belton Missouri personal injury auto accident client received the total amount of the driver’s insurance coverage plus court costs.

Belton Cass County Missouri Injury Auto Accident settles for policy limits allowing insurance company to avoid a bad faith judgment

Posted on February 11, 2011March 30, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

The Belton Cass County, Missouri injury auto accident injury of Bruce A. Jackson occurred on May 24, 2009. Our Cass County personal injury law firm represented Phillip G. Long in certain matters in Harrisonville, Missouri. Our Cass County auto accident lawyers also helped him with his bodily injury claim. The damage arose from a May 24, 2009 pick-up truck & motorcycle auto accident in Cass County, Missouri. Mr. Jackson alleged it was the result of Mr. Long’s negligent operation of his pick-up truck as Mr. Long traveled in an easterly direction along Missouri Route 6 in Novinger, Missouri. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois (“Safeco”) insured the liability of Mr. Long for this loss.

The automobile liability insurance policy issued by Safeco insured Mr. Long’s liability with limits of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) per person.

Mr. Jackson was being represented by a Kirksville personal injury attorney rarely seen in Cass County, Missouri. By letter dated April 28, 2010, Mr. Richardson made a auto accident settlement demand on behalf of his client of a sum of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00). That settlement demand exceeded the applicable policy limits by a sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). In his demand, Mr. Richardson very clearly laid out his theory of liability and resulting damages, including the nature and extent of Mr. Jackson’s injuries. As Mr. Richardson stated, Mr. Jackson sustained auto accident personal injuries including multiple fractures of his right fibula and his left tibia. The left lower extremity fractures were reduced by instrumentation. Mr. Jackson also suffered a fracture of his left clavicle.

Mr. Richardson summarized Mr. Jackson’ special damages as follows:

(1.) TOTAL MEDICAL BILLS & RELATED EXPENSES: $ 82,184.26

(2.) TOTAL LOST INCOME: 13,367.00

(3.) TOTAL OTHER PECUNIARY DAMAGES: 13,137.53

TOTAL SPECIAL DAMAGES: $108,688.79

Mr. Jackson alleged that he would suffer reduced earning capacity in the future, and that as a result, he will suffer a “future loss of income of a substantial nature.” In Mr. Richardson’s letter, he stated that in the event a Cass County, Missouri auto accident lawsuit was filed, he would retain a forensic economist to more fully analyze Mr. Jackson’s future economic losses.

In his letter, Mr. Richardson theorized a verdict for Cass County personal injury pain and suffering alone of a sum of Three Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand Dollars ($364,000.00), which would be in addition to the special damages of nearly One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($110,000.00). These numbers totaled nearly Four Hundred Seventy-Four Thousand Dollars ($474,000.00), a sum nearly double Mr. Long’s automobile liability insurance limits.

Mr. Richardson also pointed out in his initial Lees Summit auto accident injury settlement demand letter that, because of the fact that Mr. Long was driving while intoxicated in Raymore and Belton, Missouri (Mr. Long’s blood alcohol content approximately an hour and a half after the accident was .109%), the facts and circumstances of this case supported a conclusion that a punitive damages claim would be submitted to a Cass County, Missouri auto accident jury in this case. In Cass County, Missouri, a jury may award a Harrisonville auto accident Plaintiff punitive damages where the conduct of the Defendant “showed complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others”; in such a case, the jury is instructed to award a Plaintiff “any additional amount as punitive damages in such sum as” the jury may “believe will serve to punish Defendant and to deter Defendant and others from like conduct.”

In his letter, Mr. Richardson cited the case, Stoykovic v. Weller, 802 S.W. 2d 152 (Mo. banc 1991), where the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled: “It is important to recognize the purpose of punitive damages to deter reckless conduct could hardly be better served than in alcohol related driving cases. If an award of ‘smart money’ can have a sobering effect on this Defendant and other like him, its deterrent purpose will be served.”

Mr. Richardson suggested a likely Jackson County, Missouri personal injury punitive damages verdict of as much as Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00).

I did not have an opportunity to review the applicable automobile liability insurance policy, but I assumed that it would not indemnify Mr. Long for a Judgment of punitive damages from a Cass County, Missouri personal injury verdict. Accordingly, not only was Mr. Long clearly at risk of a verdict in a sum in excess of the Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollar ($250,000.00) liability limits, he was likewise at risk to a substantial Judgment for punitive damages from a Cass County, Missouri personal injury verdict.

While I was not provided with a copy of the letter to Mr. Richardson responding to his Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollar ($350,000.00) settlement demand, I understood that he corresponded with him on July 21, 2010, where he rejected the Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollar ($350,000.00) Lees Summit personal injury settlement demand and submitted a settlement offer of One Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000.00).

In response to his offer, Mr. Richardson had communicated with him by letter of August 6, 2010, stating he now had authority to settle his client’s claim for the policy limits sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00). In his letter, Mr. Richardson stated that “this is Mr. Jackson’s bottom dollar.” Mr. Richardson had very firmly advised me of the same.

On behalf of Mr. Long, I thereby demanded that Safeco accept Mr. Jackson’ policy limits demand, and that Safeco enter into an agreement to pay Mr. Jackson a sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) in consideration for Mr. Jackson’ agreement to release and discharge Mr. Long from any and all liability arising from this Jackson County, Missouri auto accident personal injury.

Safeco had now had sufficient time to thoroughly investigate this claim against its insured, and it now had an opportunity to protect its insured by accepting this policy limits demand.

The Missouri Supreme Court opinion in Zumwalt v. Utilities Insurance Co., 228 S.W. 2d 750 (Mo. 1950) and all cases following it required that Safeco act in good faith as it evaluates this claim. In doing so, Safeco must consider the financial interests of its insured. This claim had very clear value in excess of the policy limits, notwithstanding the likelihood of a Judgment for punitive damages. As such, Safeco was legally obligated to honestly and sincerely negotiate and settle this claim within policy limits and to put the financial interests of its insured ahead of its own financial interests, when it had the opportunity to do so. Mr. Jackson’ policy limits demand affords Safeco that opportunity.

I asked the auto accident attorney from Jackson County, Missouri to please promptly respond to Mr. Richardson’s August 6, 2010 letter by accepting his settlement demand of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00), to be paid in consideration of a full and final release of all claims against Mr. Long.

The insurance company agreed with our legal analysis and the case settled to the client’s benefit.

The Johnson County Personal Injury Automobile Accident of Angie Smith v. Anthony D. Long – The right way to demand car crash compensation

Posted on February 4, 2011March 30, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

Our Pleasant Hill, Belton, Raymore and Harrisonville, Missouri personal injury law firm represented “Angie Smith” in the above-referenced matter. She presented a claim against an insured for personal injuries she sustained in an automobile accident the insured caused.

On September 14, 2000, Angie was a passenger in an automobile traveling east on 75^th Street in Overland Park, Kansas. Our Cass County, Belton & Raymore personal injury attorneys originally met Angie in Harrisonville, Missouri. That day, Angie was traveling to Cass County, Missouri as an automobile passenger. Mr. Long was driving while intoxicated in Johnson County, traveling west on 75^th Street in Johnson County. Mr. Long attempted to turn left at the end of an overpass so as to place his car on Interstate 35 headed south toward several Cass County law firms as well. Mr. Long pulled in front of the automobile carrying Miss Smith causing an Johnson County automobile accident. Mr. Long was tested and issued a Johnson County traffic ticket for driving while intoxicated in Johnson County. His Blood Alcohol Content was .143. Mr. Long’s inattention to the traffic laws and safety of others contributed to cause permanent personal injuries to Angie. Mr. Long would bear liability from this car accident. Our Lees Summit personal injury lawyers’ demand was an effort to settle the matter without trial litigation within the insured’s policy limits.

Our Lees Summit car accident lawyers’ demand was intended to provide the insurance company with the information necessary to fairly evaluate and conclude settlement. The statements made were in the nature of settlement discussions and negotiations. It was the intention of our Lees Summit personal injury attorneys that no portion of the auto accident demand brochure be used in any manner at trial, should the car accident lawsuit proceed to trial, other than for purposes of establishing bad faith.

ANGIE SMITH’S BACKGROUND

“Angie Smith” was born on December 26, 1970 and was 30 years old at the time of her personal injury automobile accident. She had a bachelor’s degree in Sports Psychology from the University of Seoul in Korea. She attended Donnelly College in Kansas City, Kansas. Prior to the collision, Miss Smith had no medical difficulties and had perfect teeth. She had a boyfriend who was from Harrisonville, Missouri in Cass County.

FACTS OF THE INJURY AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT

The insured, Anthony Long, was driving while intoxicated in Johnson County at 1:30 a.m. headed west on 75^th Street. It appeared he was headed away from a Cass County, Missouri law firm in Johnson County. Mr. Smith, the driver of the vehicle carrying Miss Smith, was sober and was headed east on 75^th Street. They were headed toward a Belton and Raymore, Missouri law office. Mr. Long attempted to turn across 75^th Street so as to place his car on I-35 south towards Cass County, MO. Mr. Long had a duty to yield to oncoming traffic. It appears that because of his inattention and driving while intoxicated state, Mr. Long failed to observe the automobile carrying Miss Smith as he pulled in front of it. Mr. Long pulled in front of the other automobile at such a late time that Mr. Smith did not have time to swerve or otherwise avoid the injury auto accident. Miss Smith intended to file a lawsuit against Mr. Long for the car accident injuries he inflicted upon her.

The auto accident caused Angie’s face to collide with the dashboard of the car causing her injury. Her head then struck the windshield, leaving an imprint of her head in shattered glass.

After the automobile accident, Angie slid onto the floorboard and was physically unable to get up. Mr. Smith remembers Angie exclaiming at the terrible pain she was in. Angie repeatedly cried “I’m hurt, I’m hurt” and “I want to go home.” He remembers that Angie had injured her teeth, head, legs, back, neck, shoulders arms, lower ribs right hip, knees and calves.

Angie Smith was transported from the auto accident scene in an ambulance towards Belton, Missouri. She spent over three hours in the emergency room. The insured received a traffic ticket for driving while intoxicated.

BASIS FOR LIABILITY

It was clear to our Lees Summit auto accident personal injury attorneys from these facts that the insured, Anthony D. Long would bear fault for causing Angie Smith’s car accident injuries. Mr. Long received a traffic ticket for driving while intoxicated and tested with a Blood Alcohol Content of .143. The driver of the other automobile would testify in Johnson County Court that Mr. Long pulled in front of him at the last instance, and while he attempted to stop and swerve to avoid the car crash, he had insufficient time to do so.

There was no design or manufacturing product defect for Johnson County in either vehicle. Accordingly, the defense of defective product design or a manufacturing defect attorney was not available.

The aforementioned facts and circumstances showed auto accident liability. There was no question to our Belton, Raymore, Harrisonville, Missouri personal injury attorneys that a jury would find fault against the insured at trial. We contacted the Lees Summit personal injury lawyers at www.lees-summit-attorney.com and they agreed.

PERSONAL INJURY

“Angie Smith” was transported to the St. Luke’s Hospital Emergency Room for medical treatment. This hospital was closer to give her treatment for her auto accident injuries in Johnson County than a facility in Cass County, Missouri, such as Research Belton hospital. From the automobile accident, Miss Smith was required to seek dental surgery for the Johnson County personal injuries to her mouth. She underwent dental surgery at Oral & Facial Surgery Associates, P.A.. She was placed under general anesthesia and a ruptured front tooth was surgically removed. Three months later, she was again placed under general anesthesia and an endosseous implant was put into her jaw. Ms. Smith underwent a third dental surgery at the offices of Robert Lewis, D.D.S. where partial upper staples (temporary crowns) were placed in her front teeth. After each surgery, Ms. Smith had to bear a painful recovery process.

Miss Smith continued to experience sharp pains in her upper chest and dull pains in her arms from her Lees Summit auto accident injury. Her knee got a tingling pain and occasionally went numb when she sat. She had difficulty biting down and could no longer eat certain foods. Also, her voice had changed. Her face appeared different because the Johnson County auto accident injuries to her upper jaw caused it to protrude out slightly. Photos taken near Belton, Missouri confirmed this personal injury to her mouth.

In spite of all of this, Miss Smith continued to tolerate the pain and has continued on with her school work. Due to the severity of the personal injuries to her front teeth, her lawyers and Belton and Cass County, Missouri dentists anticipated she would continue to experience teeth pain throughout her life. She would need to have the implant and the crowns replaced periodically for the remainder of her life.

SPECIAL DAMAGES

Past Medical Expenses

A summary of the personal injury medical expenses that Angie Smith had incurred are listed below:

St. Luke’s Medical Center

Emergency Room Care $159.00

Pharmacy $12.00

CT Scan $1,323.00

Emergency Room Care $159.00

Oral and Facial Surgery Associates, P.A.

Anesthesia $235.00

Surgery to Remove Ruptured Tooth $130.00

Anesthesia $235.00

Placement of Implant $1,100.00

Robert Lewis, D.D.S.

Dental Examination $35.00

X-Ray $12.00

X-Ray $10.00

Pulpotomy $75.00

Dental Examination $35.00

X-Ray $12.00

Interim Partial Upper Staple $400.00

Place crowns and an implant attachment on 8/20/01 $2,750.00[1]

TOTAL PAST MEDICAL EXPENSES $7,082.00

Scheduled Future Medical Expenses

Replace porcelain crowns on teeth 8 and 9 on 8/20/11 $1,750.00[2]

Replace porcelain crowns on teeth 8 and 9 on 8/20/21 $1,750.00[3]

Replace porcelain crowns on teeth 8 and 9 on 8/20/31 $1,750.00

Replace porcelain crowns on teeth 8 and 9 on 8/20/41 $1,750.00

Replace porcelain crowns on teeth 8 and 9 on 8/20/51 $1,750.00

Replace Dental Implant one to two times $1,650.00[4]

TOTAL FUTURE SPECIAL DAMAGES $13,150.00

TOTAL SPECIAL DAMAGES $17,482.00

Non-Economic Personal Injury Damages – Physical Pain

Angie Smith had three broken teeth in the front of her mouth. Tooth # 9 was ruptured below the gum line. An implant resembling a nail was implanted where the tooth’s root once was. That implant caused her pain on a daily basis. She experienced pain when laughing, talking, and especially when drinking or eating. At times, her front teeth, gums and jaw hurt spontaneously. Following the Jackson County, Missouri injury auto accident, Angie could not move for several days because of the pain. She lost sixteen pounds, dropping to a weight of ninety-six pounds. She could not eat and had great trouble drinking because of her missing teeth. She had trouble talking and walking. She had pain in her head from breaking the windshield the vehicle. She had pain in her legs, back, neck, shoulders arms, lower ribs, right hip, knees and calves and blood in her urine for between four and six months.

Non-Economic Personal Injury Damages – Disfigurement

Angie Smith was missing all or part of three teeth in the front of her mouth. The photographs of Angie before and after the collision clearly showed the impact the insured’s automobile accident negligence had on her appearance. Our Cass County, Raymore, Belton and Harrisonville, Missouri personal injury attorneys could see from a distance, even as of the date of the correspondence, that Miss Smith had a serious disfiguring injury to her mouth. Young ladies are, of course, greatly concerned about their physical appearance. The implants were noticeably darker, stuck out and looked different than normal teeth. Because it was an implant, Angie would be able to show the Johnson County jury how she cleaned the implant simply by removing it and putting back into place. Angie Smith permanently lost the attractive smile that she once had because of the automobile accident.

PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT DEMAND

In evaluating this case, our Cass County, Raymore and Belton injury attorneys took into consideration the extent and nature of the personal injuries that Miss Smith had incurred, and the pain, discomfort and inconvenience she had endured as a result of her injuries. The carelessness of the insured driver in the car accident resulted in permanent personal injuries to Miss Smith that had so far, required over one year of treatment. In spite of her efforts to recover from her personal injury, she continued to experience regular pain, discomfort, suffering and embarrassment.

These problems took a toll on her personal life and plans in the future, all of which were created by the careless driving of the insured in the injury automobile accident. Our law firm in Pleasant Hill, Missouri evaluated this personal injury claim for compensation. Our auto accident attorneys felt confident that a Johnson County jury, like a Cass County, Missouri jury, would respond favorably to an attractive young woman whose body was painfully personally injured and whose front teeth were broken and ruptured below the gum line by the driving while intoxicated negligence of Anthony Long.

In view of these facts, and in consideration of the special damages, permanency of personal injuries, and unquestionable auto accident liability, as well as the future expense of dental surgery, our Cass County, Pleasant Hill and Raymore injury lawyers believed this case has a value of $200,000.00. Angi Smith offered to settle her car accident claims against Anthony Long and Guide One Insurance Company for the sum of $200,000.00, assuming it was within the limits of the liability insurance.

Our Harrisonville, Missouri personal injury attorneys’ offer to settle provided an opportunity for Guide One Insurance Company to protect the interests of Anthony Long and to settle this auto accident lawsuit. It also provided Guide One Specialty with an opportunity to avoid its own liability for extra-contractual damages for its bad faith and for a payment of the entirety of the judgment Miss Smith will receive at trial in Johnson County.

Our Cass County law firm posted its calendar for fifteen (15) days from the date of the personal injury demand letter to give the insurer sufficient time to consider our attorneys’ demand. After that date, the offer would be withdrawn. Thereafter, our personal injury lawyers would recommend to Miss Smith to immediately file suit and begin litigation.

[1] See Dr. Lewis’ letter of April 21, 2001, Miss Smith had dental surgery on August 20, 2001, a crown was placed on tooth #8, an implant attachment placed on tooth # 9 and a crown on tooth #9.

[2] See Dr. Lewis’ letter of April 21, 2001, $750.00 for the crown on tooth #8, $1,000.00 for the crown and the implant attachment on tooth #9. Crowns need to be replaced periodically. Dr. Lewis correctly states that insurance policies allow for crowns to be replaced every 5-7 years. With good care, some crowns may last as long as 20 years. It is reasonable to estimate a crown replacement every ten (10) years.

[3] Mi Kyeong Smith, who is thirty years of age, has a life expectancy of an additional 50 years. See National Vital Statistics Report from the Center for Disease Control (December 24, 1998).

[4] See Letter from Oral & Facial Surgery Associates, P.A. of May 1, 2001, setting out that she will need the implant replaced one to two times at a present cost of $1,100 per implant. It also estimates that the cost of replacement will rise. It is reasonable to estimate that the cost will be $1,650.00.

Pleasant Hill, Raymore, Cass County Attorney achieves 15 Million Dollar Judgment for Motorcycle Injury Auto Accident near Lees Summit

Posted on February 3, 2011April 13, 2018 by Matt Hamilton

Raymore Personal Injury lawyer Matt Hamilton of the Lees Summit law firm of Hamilton & Associates was awarded a fifteen million dollar judgment recently for an injury auto accident lawsuit involving a motorcycle. The judgment came from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Independence. Hamilton is a Pleasant Hill, Cass County, Missouri personal injury attorney that lives in Raymore, Cass County, Missouri.

The car crash north of Cass County, Missouri occurred on January 22, 2009 at the intersection of Highway 210 and Arlington Avenue in North Kansas City, Clay County, Missouri. This is a location some twenty miles north of Cass County, MO and just north of law offices in Lee’s Summit and Jackson County, MO. This auto accident occurred when defendant Earl McLaughlin drove his 1986 Chevrolet Caprice automobile towing a flatbed trailer west on Highway 210 in Clay County, MO. For reasons unknown, Mr. McLaughlin drove his automobile to the right (north) side of the highway and parked it on the shoulder.

Lauren “Sheehan” was an attractive young doctorate student studying Pharmacology at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. She was well-liked and had friends from as far south as in Harrisonville, Cass County, Missouri law offices to lawyers in Lee’s Summit Jackson County, Missouri. She was driving a motorcycle behind Mr. McLaughlin, also west on Highway 210 in Clay County, Missouri just north of Cass County and Lees Summit. Miss Sheehan was traveling at highway speeds. She had no pre-existing injury or conditions and a bright future ahead of her.

As Miss Sheehan on her motorcycle, pre accident approached the position where Mr. McLaughlin was parked in his automobile on the north/right side of the road, Mr. McLaughlin moved. He drove his Chevy automobile left, headed south across the shoulder and across two lanes of traffic abruptly through the intersection. Mr. McLaughlin either did not look to check for the safety of upcoming automobiles and motorcycles or looked and chose not to heed the risk of an injury auto accident. For Lauren, this effectively placed a thirty foot wide barrier in front of her motorcycle at a ninety degree angle to the road. There was no time to react.

There was no manufacturing defect in the motorcycle. There also was no design defect in her motorcycle. Simply, the negligence of other driver gave insufficient time to react.

The motorcycle driven by Miss Sheehan struck the side of the Chevy Caprice automobile driven by Mr. McLaughlin causing a severe non Cass County auto accident. Specifically, the motorcycle struck the rear door of Mr. McLaughlin’s automobile. The Caprice automobile suffered property damage. The motorcycle driven by Miss Sheehan was “totaled.” Mr. McLaughlin was uninjured. Lauren Sheehan received catastrophic life-altering injuries.

Missouri law requires the drivers of all automobiles who intend to turn left at any intersection to approach the intersection in the extreme left hand lane to the traffic moving in the direction of travel. RSMo. 304.341.1(2). Mr. McLaughlin failed to do this by turning left in his automobile from the extreme right hand shoulder of highway 210. The purpose of that Missouri law is to prevent serious injury auto accidents. Mr. McLaughlin violated Missouri law.

Missouri law requires the driver of an overtaken automobile to to “give way” to the right in favor of an overtaking automobile. RSMo. 304.016.1 (2). The purpose of this Missouri law is to avoid a car accident that causes death or injury. Mr. McLaughlin violated this Missouri law by failing to yield his automobile to the motorcycle driven by Miss Sheehan, causing a car crash.

Missouri law requires an auto entering a roadway from a private area to yield to another vehicle approaching on the highway. The purpose of this Missouri law is to prevent serious non Cass County but Missouri injury automobile accidents. Mr. McLaughlin violated this Missouri law by choosing not to yield to the motorcycle driven by Miss Sheehan but rather to drive his automobile left across several lanes of traffic from a private area (the shoulder) causing a car wreck.

In addition, Missouri law dictates that the driver of an automobile is required to yield to another automobile if the other auto is so close to the intersection that it is an immediate hazard. The purpose of this statute is to avoid injury auto accidents. Here, Miss Sheehan was approaching the intersection on her motorcycle and was so close at the time Mr. McLaughlin turned left in his automobile that it posed a hazard. Mr. McLaughlin failed to yield to Miss Sheehan and caused this very serious injury auto accident north of Lees Summit.

As a result of the auto accident, Lauren Sheehan had the following injury broken bones:

Pelvis Fracture in 4 places

A C-2 transverse process spine Fracture

R suprapubic ramus bone break

L Sacroiliac bone fracture

L acetabular bone fracture

L superior PR bone fracture

L inferior PR bone fracture with 2 cm gap

R inferior Pubic Ramus bone fracture

T-3 transverse process spine bone fracture

T-4 transverse process spine bone fracture

T-5 transverse process spine bone fracture

T-6 transverse process spine bone fracture

T-7 transverse process spine bone fracture

T-8 burst spine bone fracture with retropulsion (unstable)

T8 compression spine bone fracture

T8 height loss of 60-70%

T6 Compression spine bone fracture

T9 Compression spine bone fracture

Abnormal widening of T7-T8 spine bone both on L and R

T6-10 posterior arthrodesis

Posterolateral listhesis

L-1 transverse process spine bone fracture

R comminuted humeral shaft bone fracture

R ulnar Fracture

Radial ulnar Fractures

Radial Head Fracture

L upper ulnar Fx and radial Fxs

Multiple R side transverse process spine bone fractures

Bilateral comminuted forearm (wrist) bone Fractures

Multiple Thoracic compression spine bone fractures

Multiple rib Fractures, 3, 4, 5

Miss Sheehan also received multiple soft tissue injuries as a result of the auto accident. She had the following soft tissue injuries:

Coma – 1/22/09 to at least 1/30/09

L knee ligament injury involving PCL and LCL

Severe Tongue laceration

4 cm Liver laceration

Ligament injury of posterior T8-T9 facet joints

Foraminal compromise at T8-T9

Acute Respiratory failure

Lung infection/inflammation

Acute Spinal Cord compression

Intracranial hemorage

Bilateral apical pneumothorax

Most significantly, the auto accident caused Miss Sheehan neurological injury. This is a brain injury auto accident. Specifically, she had the following brain injuries:

1 Shear type intracranial injury with multisystem drop

Axonal injury

R periventricular white matter

Cerebral edema

L cerebral peduncle

Involvement of corpus callosum secondary to collision

Central spinal canal stenosis T8 secondary to retropulsion

Encephalomalacia of the L basal ganglia

R hemiparesis with probable right neglect

Large intrusion on the spinal canal due to T8 Fx

Spinal cord contusion at T8, bone touching the cord

Disordered sleep cycle (6-7 hours as of 4-15-09) (5-7 hours on 3-18-09)

Limb muscle spasms including PCL and LCL, and R UE flexors

As of the date of judgment, the injury medical bills Miss Sheehan incurred as a result of the car accident exceeded $821,083.76. Her medical costs continue to increase and will increase throughout the course of her life.

Miss Sheehan will lose very significant loss of wages and earnings as a result of this injury automobile accident. Specifically, the car crash will cost her the following employment loss:

Miss Sheehan had an expected median salary of $102,336. She was expected to have a career lasting thirty nine (39) years, at least. This accounts to an estimated work wage employment loss as a result of the injury auto accident of $3,991,104.00 (nearly four million dollars in damages from work loss alone). Naturally, this would need to be adjusted for its present value and expected wage increases.

The lawsuit to recover the damages from the car accident was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County at Independence on October 30, 2009. Cass County attorney and Raymore resident Matt Hamilton filed the lawsuit. His website is www.lees-summit-attorney.com. He is a Cass County, Missouri personal injury attorney who has his primary law office in Pleasant Hill, Cass County, Missouri.

This auto accident brain injury lawsuit was brought before the court on February 4, 2010. The Honorable Judge decided the case. Judgment was entered for the victim Lauren Sheehan and against the person that caused the car accident, Mr. McLaughlin. Damages were calculated by the Court. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff and against the defendant for fifteen million dollars ($15,000.000.00).

Category: Cass County & Johnson County Auto Accidents

How Lawyers Deal with Government Sovereign Immunity for Wrongful Death and Personal Injury

Example: An IV catheter mistake leads to wrongful death

Can her survivors recover for their loss?

The History of Governmental Immunity from Wrongful Death and Injury lawsuits

Governments Have Immunity from Wrongful Death Claims In Most Circumstances

Two Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity

Municipal City Governments Only Get Partial Immunity

What Is a “Governmental” vs. “Proprietary” Function?

When Is It a “Governmental Function?”

What is a “Proprietary” Function?

Lawyers: Do Not Forget This!

Conclusion

Matt Hamilton of Hamilton & Associates, Lawyers

HOW MUCH SHOULD YOUR ACCIDENT LAWYER COST?

THE OPTIONS: CONTINGENCY FEE VS. ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS VS. HOURLY

The Hourly Rate Method of Paying a Lawyer

Paying through an Attorney’s Fee Award Case

The British System Versus the American System of Paying Lawyers

Paying the Lawyers through a Contingency Fee

Complaints About High Pay Low Effort Contingency Fees

Contingency Fees are Sometimes Prohibited

How Long is the Attorney Required to Work on a Contingency Fee Case?

When is an Attorney’s Fee Unfair?

WHAT ARE TYPICAL CONTINGENCY FEE AMOUNTS?

Thirty Three Percent (33%) Contingency Fees

Forty Percent (40%) Contingency Fees

Forty Five Percent (45%) Contingency Fees and Higher

WHY SHOULD I PAY SO MUCH FOR A CONTINGENCY FEE LAWYER?

FIVE REASONS WHY INSURANCE COMPANIES DO NOT FAIRLY PAY ACCIDENT CLAIMS

A MONEY MAKING ENTERPRISE

INSURER DELAY MEANS INSURER MONEY

THE DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY

Natural Selection in favor of Unfair Insurance Employees

A DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OPINIONS

Computers Affect Accident Claim Value

TOO FEW VALUE HEROES

Hamilton & Associates, Lawyers