Birmingham Personal Injury Lawyer - Attorneys

Won Your Workers Compensation Case? Not so Fast

Jon Lewis — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:02:11 GMT

What are the insurance companies doing now? They are using "Utilization Review" in order to cut off workers compensation benefits. How does that work?

Well, the Alabama Workers Compensation Act allows for "Utilization Review". That means that the workers compensation insurance carrier can submit your medical records to a third party physician to review and determine if they are related to the injury. If that third party physician says, "No", the workers compensation carrier cuts off the injured employee's benefits.

How does this work in practice? Take my client for example. She had surgery approximately ten (10) years ago. Her workers compensation case was settled, and her medical was left open for future treatment. Typically, that is what happens in workers compensation cases. The person receives medical treatment for the related injuries for the rest of her life.

For ten (10) years, my client has been receiving prescriptions and medical treatment for her injuries. Out of the blue, the insurance carrier sends her records to a foreign doctor in El Paso, Texas who opines that her injuries and medical treatment are not related. So, the insurance carrier, under the "utilization review" provision, cuts off her medical treatment.

Why did they wait ten (10) years? How can this doctor supersede my client's local doctor's opinion when he hasn't even examined her. Shouldn't the "Authorized treating" physician have the final say? The insurance carrier approved her "Authorized Treating" Physician.

This is ridiculous and unfair, but that is how the insurance industry works. Insurance covers everything but the loss. All they want is their money and to hell with everything else - morals, humanity, sympathy, kindness, and generosity. It is all about the bottom line. People talk about "greedy trial attorneys" when they should be talking about "greedy insurance companies".

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Now Here Is A Fraud Story Involving SSD You Don't See Everyday

Stuart McAtee — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:07:00 GMT

Just when you thought the world couldn't be more bizarre, according to the New York Daily News, a Brooklyn man impersonated his dead mother to collect Social Security checks and rent subsidies.

A man in Brooklyn is accused of donning a wig, nail polish and dresses to impersonate his dead mom and collect $115,000 in Social Security and rent subsidies. Read article: www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/06/17/2009-06-17_cops_brooklyn_man_impersonates_dead_mother.html

For six years Thomas Prusik-Parking hoodwinked a stunning array of government agencies with his elaborate charade - using a cane, heavy makeup, fake ID and a phony "nephew," law enforcement sources said.

The 49-year-old was busted in June and was arraigned on grand larceny, forgery and conspiracy charges linked to a deed and mortgage fraud scheme.

"I held my mother when she was dying and breathed in her last breath, so I am my mother," Prusik-Parkin said when he was arrested, according to detectives.

The mother, Irene Prusik died in 2003 at age 73. The flimflam, which the Daily News learned of during a mortgage fraud probe, began immediately.

Her son allegedly gave the funeral director the wrong Social Security number and date of birth for his mother so that her death would not be registered in government databases.

He began collecting $700 a month in Social Security in her name, in addition to his own disability checks, sources said.

He may be the ultimate mama's boy.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Stuart McAtee

Time Limits On Receiving SSD Benefits And Why The Wait?

Stuart McAtee — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:06:39 GMT

In our Social Security practice, we often recieve questions from clients about certain items required by the Social Security Administration(SSA). Below are a few questions commonly asked by clients along with responses from the SSA. Feel free to contact our office if you have any further questions, or if you have been denied your SSD benefits by the SSA.

Q: Is there a time limit on receiving Social Security disability benefits?

A: Your disability benefits will continue as long as your medical condition has not improved and you cannot work. The SSA will review your case once in a while to make sure you are still disabled.

If you are still receiving disability benefits when you reach your full retirement age, your benefits will automatically be converted to retirement benefits.

Q: Why is there a five-month waiting period for Social Security disability benefits?

A: By law, Social Security disability benefits can be paid only after a worker has been disabled continuously throughout a period of five full calendar months. The first benefit paid is for the sixth month of disability and is paid in the seventh month.

This waiting period ensures that we pay benefits only to people with long-term disabilities and avoid duplicating other income protection plans (such as employer sick-pay plans) during the early months of disability.

To learn more, read the publication, "Disability Benefits," at www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10029.html.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Stuart McAtee

What do SSD Payments, Turkeys, Texas Farmers, and Iowa Have In Common?

Stuart McAtee — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:00:00 GMT

Could it be that a Texas farm that employed mentally disabled workers exploited them and took their SSD payments? Allegations are bothersome about the Dallas Morning News story about a farm in Texas which is facing charges of wrongdoing involving mentally disabled workers. read story here.

The young men, fresh from Texas state institutions for the mentally disabled, began arriving at Thurman Johnson's ranch in the rolling hills west of town in the late 1960s. Johnson taught them how to raise turkeys and cows and perform other farm chores, then put them to work. Later, he and his partner, Kenneth Henry, hired out the men as laborers at turkey processing plants in Iowa and other states.

Over four decades, Johnson and Henry cared for hundreds of mentally disabled Texans and profited from their labor – with the knowledge of state and federal authorities. The arrangement ended in February, when Iowa authorities shut down a shabby bunkhouse where the last 21 men lived while working long hours in a nearby turkey processing plant.

FBI agents and other federal and state investigators in Texas and Iowa have interviewed witnesses and are poring over thousands of pages of records to determine whether the business broke laws, including underpaying workers or violating their civil rights. Iowa authorities recently notified Henry that the business could face $900,000 in fines for improper payroll deductions and other alleged violations.

The U.S. Social Security Administration is examining the company's handling of federal assistance payments to its disabled workers. At the time authorities shut down the Iowa bunkhouse, each of the Henry's workers was collecting on average about $640 a month in Social Security and federal disability payments. The money went directly into each individual's account at the Mills County State Bank in Goldthwaite, Texas – accounts that Hill Country Farms was allowed to access according to the story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Stuart McAtee

Banks Have Found A Loophole And Are Seizing SSD Payments

Stuart McAtee — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:00:00 GMT

In an age where banks are dodging lawsuits from every angle, they have found a way to seize money from customers' accounts causing concern not only from consumers, but from congress. As if the American people weren’t hurting enough, some banks have been seizing Social Security, disability, veteran and pension benefits from account holders in order to pay off debts, despite federal regulations protecting such funds. A group of legislators has been pressuring the Treasury Department to close the loophole that allows these heinous acts. According to the Wall Street Journal, a bipartisan group of legislators is pressing the Treasury Department to close a loophole that has allowed banks to seize Social Security and disability benefits from customers’ accounts despite federal rules intended to protect these benefits from creditors.

The loophole also has enabled some banks to seize from customers their recent $250 Economic Recovery Payments, payments to disabled veterans, and supplemental benefits to impoverished individuals from the Social Security Administration.

Federal law says creditors can’t take Social Security, disability, veterans’ and children’s survivor benefits to pay a debt. But the federal law doesn’t say how money deposited directly into bank accounts is to be protected—a gap that has given banks the ability to seize such funds. Why is it that banks line up to accept federal bailout money, then are reluctant to account for where the money went, find loopholes in the law to seize SSD money, then don't want to be accountable for either?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Stuart McAtee

Death over Dogs

Jon Lewis — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:27:39 GMT

There was a short editorial in the Birmingham News this morning discussing Donte Stallworth's sentence versus Michael Vick's sentence. The article questions the justice between the two. After reading this piece, it got me to thinking that this would be a good Part 6 to my Accidents Caused by Drunk Driving Series, but the title just didn't seem to fit.

I agree with the writer that there is something wrong with this picture. How could Michael Vick be sentenced to 23 months in prison for his involvement in a dog fighting scandle when Donte Stallworth only received 30 days in jail for getting in a car drunk and killing someone? It doesn't make sense.

I'm a dog lover. My family has a dog at home. We give to Hand in Paw. However, it seems strange that the penalty for driving drunk and killing someone would be so much less severe that being involved in a dog fighting ring. Is it because we have been de-sensitized to drunk driving, but we aren't used to dog fighting? I can't answer that question, but I agree that the justice seems out of whack.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Alabama Injury Attorneys - How to Choose?

Jon Lewis — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:21:00 GMT

I'm always amazed at all of the advertisements for Injury Attorneys in Alabama. You see ads on billboards, on television, and on radio. There are so many. How can anyone know who to choose? I also wonder, would people choose their doctor from an ad? If not, why would they choose their lawyer from an ad? And, what makes them choose one over the other? Is it the jingle from Goldberg? Is it the testimonials from Alex Shannarah? Is it the numbers on Wettermark, Holland and Keith's commercials? Or is it seeing Mr. Norris in a Norris commercial?

How would you go about choosing an attorney? Many people ask friends and family members. If they have had experience with an attorney, good or bad, they may be able to provide some insight. Others ask attorneys they know for recommendations. Other lawyers typically have some knowledge of who the competent and good lawyers are. Some people even ask judges. Judges see attorneys in action.

Today, there is another way to select an attorney: interact with the attorney online. With Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, JDSupra, blogs, Twitter, YouTube, etc., there are so many ways you can get to know your potential attorney. You can read their website. You can e-mail them. You can look up their testimonials. You can even see them live through video if they have it. On our site, we have suggested questions to ask attorneys. We'll even recommend attorneys you should use if you don't feel comfortable with our firm. You and your attorney will be a team, and you need to work together as a team. How can you if you don't KNOW your teammate?

In this day and age, don't select your attorney from a simple commercial. Your case is too important to hire an attorney strictly based upon a sound bite. Interview your attorney - if not in person, do it online. Ask them about their experience. Ask them if they feel comfortable about providing names of other quality attorneys. If they don't, maybe you should keep searching.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Alabama Neck Injuries - Low Impact Car Accidents

Jon Lewis — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:40:47 GMT

Can your neck be injured in a car crash with a low impact? Most defense attorneys and insurance companies would have you believe that it's impossible. They make many arguments to jurors that it's impossible and that these are just preexisting injuries. But, they are wrong!! Don't be fooled!

There are two examples I can give that will illustrate the force applied even at low speeds: 1) would you put your hand on the back of a stopped vehicle and let another car roll into your hand at 5 miles per hour? Of course not. It would crush your hand. 2) Have you ever played with the ball pendulum game (commonly called kinetic balls or Newton's Cradle)? This game demonstrate newton's third law of motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When one ball is pulled back and strikes the next ball, the force is great enough to travel through the three others and kick the last one up.

When your car is hit from the rear, the force travels through the car, jerks your body, and typically, your head snaps back and then forward. This force can trigger symptoms that were not present prior to the impact. It can also cause damage. This is commonly referred to as whiplash, but that term has been used so critically that it is better to use the proper medical terminology of "cervical strain", "bulging disk", or "herniated disk", depending on what your condition is. If you were already susceptible to an injury due to degeneration in your neck, this force causes the symptoms to present themselves through pain and, sometimes, through numbness and tingling.

Do you have an experience where you were involved in a low impact car crash and experienced significant pain and injury to your neck? Did the insurance company or defense attorney argue such a condition couldn't result from such a low impact? Did they make you feel awful - like you were lying? Let us know. We want to hear your story. The more people who talk about the possibilities show how real they are. Please give us your comments even if they are contrary to the above (maybe you were involved in a low impact car crash and had no pain). We want to know.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Nick Saban's Response to Passengers

Jon Lewis — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:00:00 GMT

The Birmingham News reported that a Huntsville, Alabama man sued American Airlines over travel delays. The article states that approximately 2,400 passengers were stranded due to bad weather. As a result, it took James Harper 28 hours to travel from Cancun, Mexico to Huntsville. He had to endure horrendous smells from the toilet, no food or beverage for an extended period, and seven hours on an airplane in New Orleans.

Now, I'm not familiar with the merits of the case, but it got me to thinking about what Nick Saban's reaction would be to this lawsuit. Can you imagine? I can see the dialogue now:

Passenger - "Coach, it smells bad in here, and it's hot. Can't we have some water?"

Saban - "Water? You want water? Drink from the toilet."

Passenger - "But, coach. the water's dirty. I can't drink that. We've been on this plane for seven hours."

Saban - "Seven hours? That's nothing. I'm going to make you sleep on here if you don't quit whining. Do you want to get home? You must have focus. It's a process. Have a positive attitude. Quit whining and toughen up!"

Or, can you imagine someone in the military complaining to his/her captain about the conditions in the field? Granted, these individuals volunteered to be in the military or play football, but come on.

I'm a trial attorney, and I have a hard time stomaching a case like this. In this age of tort reform and attorney bashing, do we really need to be suing companies when the damage is inconvenience and discomfort? Yes, maybe American Airlines should have been better prepared, but is a lawsuit the answer?

The lawsuit seeks $5,000,000.00 in damages for 2,400 people. Assuming the attorney fees equal 1/3 of the recovery, that would leave approximately $1,388.00 per person. That figure assumes no expenses for the litigation which would be a poor assumption because litigation has become even more expensive.

So, who will benefit from this lawsuit? I'll leave that to your imagination (not that it requires any). Maybe this is why trial attorneys are constantly bashed in the public eye and why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's marketing against trial attorneys is so successful (See www.FacesofLawsuitAbuse.com which I would gladly criticize, but I'm sure this lawsuit will make the site).

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Are We Helping Who Can ___ Sue?

Jon Lewis — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:27:06 GMT

I just received a comment from a blog I did regarding the Time Magazine article entitled "Who Can You Sue? Click Here". The comment was from Michael Tangeman, of the Pen Group. The Pen Group is apparently a public relations agency, and I suspect they work for the whocan__sue website.

This got me to thinking. Aren't we all helping whocan__sue by blogging and commenting on the website? I just looked up whocan__sue on Google, and there were 1,670 results. Couple that with the Time Magazine article along with the various other news outlets which undoubtedly picked up on the story, they seem to be getting just what they want, and frankly, the Pen Goup is doing their job.

They created a controverial name in order to get this PR. Haven't we all heard the philosophy, "there is no such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell my name right"?

I think it is time we move on to other things. We should focus on our mission. We aren't here to find who to sue. We are trying to educate the public on safety issues. We are trying to obtain compensation for those who have been injured as a result of the negligent and wrongful conduct of others. If we do our job, there will be fewer individuals/entities to sue because they will realize they need to be more careful and safer. We aren't looking for who to sue. We don't have to. Many insurance companies and corporations are asking to be sued because they aren't doing the right thing in the first place.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis