Birmingham Personal Injury Lawyer - Jon Lewis

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

Homicides Predict Traffic Deaths

Jon Lewis — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:42:37 GMT

Do State Homicide rates predict traffic fatalities? According to a University of Michigan study, they do. The study found that there was a parallel with the number of homicides and the number of traffic deaths. What seems to be the reason for this? Aggression.

The study looked at ten factors and "found that seven of them accounted for 71 percent of the variance in traffic fatality rates." Those seven are "homicide rates, proportion of male drivers, proportion of older drivers, number of alcohol-related liver failures (as a proxy for intoxicated driving), density of physicians, seat-belt use rate, and income." Apparently, the strongest predictor of these seven are homicides because homicides relate to aggression which relates to aggressive driving.

What does this teach us? We need to respect others on the roadways. We can't be in a hurry all of the time. We cannot drive while we are doing several other things: texting, playing with the radio, putting on makeup, using the telephone, changing CD's, and having too much noise and distractions in the car. We need to realize that we share the road with others, and we need to understand that different people have different driving styles just as different people have different psychological makeups.

During this holiday season, think before you act. Take a few miles per hour off your speedometer. Leave a little early for that appointment or meeting so you aren't in a rush. Be more passive on the roadways, and maybe you will save a life.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Males Die More Than Females

Jon Lewis — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:13:59 GMT

According to a study done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, more males have died in automobile crashes from 1975 through 2007. Why? Men typically drive more and take more chances such as speeding and driving drunk. The study can be viewed here.

The article has some very interesting facts regarding the statistics relating to males and females in car crashes. For example, "Almost one-third of all motor vehicle crash deaths in 2007 were females. Females accounted for 29 percent of passenger vehicle driver deaths, 47 percent of passenger vehicle passenger deaths, 30 percent of pedestrian deaths, 12 percent of bicyclist deaths, and 9 percent of motorcyclist deaths."

Check ou the study for more interesting statistics.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Money for a Wreck? Fast? Think again!

Jon Lewis — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:08:40 GMT

I was working out at the YMCA the other day, and another one of those attorney ads came on the television. The promise? We'll get you money fast for your wreck. Well, I don't know what process they are using, but I do know that our experience shows that proper compensation for your injuries does not come fast.

In this commercial, the firm implies that the process is quick, easy, and simple. That might be true if the case is settled for less than a fair value. Usually, the adjusters for the insurance companies make you prove your case and injuries before they properly evaluate the claim, and even then, they don't always evaluate it properly.

What if the case has to go to court? What does that entail? Well, we have to file a complaint with the court. Once the defendant is served with a copy of the complaint, they will have thirty (30) days to answer in Circuit Court. Once that process is concluded, paper discovery ensues, depositions are taken, a scheduling order is entered, and the case is typically set for trial within 12-18 months (For more information on the process, visit the Lewis, Feldman, Lehane & McAtee, LLC website). Is that fast? Is that quick and easy?

What about issues of subrogation? What is that? If your medical bills are paid by a health insurance company such as BlueCross BlueShield of Alabama, you have to pay them back and potentially negotiate a settlement with them. If Medicare paid your bills, you have to send them a letter and wait for a response. Do you know how long it takes to get a response from Medicare? Think about typical government action and how long that takes.

When attorneys start making promises of quick and easy cash for your injuries, question the process. How familiar are the attorneys with the court system? How many cases have they tried to verdict? How do they define proper compensation? This article is not to denigrate any firms or their attorneys, but to dispel the idea that these cases can be settled for quick and easy cash and provide you with adequate compensation. They CAN be settled for quick and easy cash, but the case will usually be settled for less than fair value.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Safety - Protect Yourself and Your Family

Jon Lewis — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:27:45 GMT

Our society values safety and health, and really, what is more important? Safety is defined on Wikipedia as:

Safety is the state of being "safe" (from French sauf), the condition of being protected against physical, social, spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types or consequences of failure, damage, error, accidents, harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable. This can take the form of being protected from the event or from exposure to something that causes health or economical losses. It can include protection of people or of possessions.

That is a broad definition. We see our societal values in health and safety in the recent discussions over national healthcare reform. We all believe our citizens deserve the best healthcare, and no one should be left behind.

Our law firm is usually hired after someone has already been injured. In those instances, had safety precautions been taken BEFORE the injury occurred, it is likely that the injury would have been prevented. Unfortunately, that is not the case once we get involved.

For this reason, our firm and InjuryBoard promote safe practices. We try to educate the public on how to be safe. Whether you are driving a car or working in a plant, there are steps you can take to be safe and lessen the risk of injury and harm.

In this regard, we have developed a Safety Shop where you can search for items to help you and your family stay safe. The domain is www.USSafetyShop.com. We plan on developing this site further to include many more products which you can review and purchase to help prevent harm to you and your family. Let us know what you think, and on this Labor Day holiday, BE SAFE!!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Noose that Hangs a Man Shows No Damage Either

Jon Lewis — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:30:07 GMT

The insurance industry has been promoting a fallacy since the early 1990's. That fallacy is that people in cars cannot be injured if the damage to the car is minor. This could not be further from the truth; however, jurors and society in general have bought into this concept. People think anyone who brings a claim for injury after minor damage to the vehicle is a crook.

As the title of this blog indicates, the rope used to hang a man will show little, if any, damage, but it will kill the man. With respect to vehicles, they are built better these days and built to withstand crashes of more significance than they could withstand years ago. Think about the materials which are now used in bumpers and other components of cars and SUV's. Simply because the car or SUV shows little damage does not mean the impact of the collision was insignificant or that the person inside the vehicle was not jolted one way or another to cause an injury.

Additionally, you have more towing packages and other components which resist damage but still receive the force of the impact. The seats in the vehicle have an effect on the collision and injury as well. See this report on It is not enough to say that the car or SUV suffered little damage. Shouldn't we focus on the individual who is injured and not the metal?

My grandfather used to always say, "Don't ever worry about what money can replace." Unfortunately, insurance companies want you to focus on the opposite. Since there is little damage to the vehicle, this person isn't hurt, and we shouldn't have to pay. This is horrible logic. We should focus on the person and the doctor and not assume the victim is lying. We should presume the person is telling the truth because if they are, they are the ones who lose in the end and are left with the injury.

If you want to read more about this issue, here is a very good article with supporting cites: Low Impact Injury Accidents: Are they Real?

Have you been in a low impact accident? Were you injured? Do you know someone who was? Can you dispel the myth? Let's talk about it. Let's get the public aware of this problem. Not everyone is injured in a collision. Some people are involved in significant collisions and rollover crashes, and they are not injured. Some people are in minor crashes, and they are injured. That is why we need to evaluate the person, not the car.

Let us know what you think.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Helping Others

Jon Lewis — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:41:40 GMT

At our firm, we pride ourselves on helping others. In that regard, when we conclude a case, we contribute a portion of our fees to one of three children's charities in the names of our clients. The three Charities are:

Hand in Paw

KidOne Transport

Children's Hospital

In addition to the above, we volunteer our services for various organizations and causes around our community. One of those causes is the Muscular Dystrophy Association and helping children who are suffering from this dreaded disease.

Right now, Jon Lewis is participating in the MDA Lock Up in Birmingham, Alabama. The goal for Jon is to raise $3,000.00 for MDA in the local community. Here is the link where you can contribute to this wonderful organization and help Jon get out of jail (or keep him in): Help MDA and JON.

We encourage everyone to get involved in their communities and charitable organizations especially in this time of economic hardships. Charities need our help more than ever.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Insurance - Name of Game: Avoid Paying.

Jon Lewis — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:13:47 GMT

My grandfather had a saying when he would ask, "What does insurance cover?" The answer? EVERYTHING BUT THE LOSS. Isn't that the truth?

What happens to our premium money when we pay for our insurance? Well, some of the money goes to overhead for the company which includes rent, salaries, office equipment, etc. Some of the money goes to pay claims. Some of the money gets invested. And, some of the money goes to lobbyists, legislative campaigns, and judicial campaigns to have laws passed in states and federally which make it more difficult for people to make claims.

Take the collateral source rule in Alabama. The collateral source rule said that a defendant could not ask the plaintiff in front of the jury if she had health insurance. The theory was that the defendant should not be entitled to get the benefit of the fact that the plaintiff had health insurance. However, our Supreme Court abolished the collateral source rule several years ago. So, now, instead of telling the jury that the medical bills were $10,000 and letting the jury decide the value of the case, they are told that Blue Cross Blue Shield paid $4,000 for the $10,000 medical bills, and if the plaintiff wins, the plaintiff only has to pay back $4,000 because Blue Cross has a contract with the provider whereby the provider will take $4,000 for the $10,000. In effect, that reduces the claim from $10,000 to $4,000.

What's wrong with that you may say? Well, first, it lowers the value of the case so insurance companies can pay less on claims. Second, what if you have two individuals with the exact same injuries in the exact same car wreck, and one has health insurance, and the other one doesn't? One can tell the jury that his bills are $10,000, and he may obtain a $40,000 verdict. The other has to tell the jury that her bills were paid by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and she only has to pay them back $4,000. She is more likely to get a verdict in the amount of $10,000 or less. Consquently, you have two cases with different values when they should be exactly the same.

In workers compensation cases, the insurance carriers have come up with a new plan to stop paying for a person's medical bills for their injuries. After several years (when the case has been concluded several years earlier), the workrers compensation carrier sends the medical bills to an "independent" doctor, and they call this "Utilization Review". The "Independent" doctor ALWAYS says that there is no documentation to support the need for further medical treatment based upon the injury, and they refuse to authorize any further medical treatment. This "Independent" doctor has never seen the patient, has never treated the patient, and is typically in another state. Why do they do this instead of asking the treating physician they authorized to treat the patient? Because, they don't want to pay any longer.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!! It, unfortunately, always comes down to money. These companies want to pay out as little as possible. That is where an attorney comes in. Unfortunately, everyone has bought into the fact that we attorneys are leeches on society when, in reality, we have been hand tied, and we have no recourse to protect against these unscrupulous actions. The only thing that talks to these companies is money, and when jury verdicts are reduced, they don't listen.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Drive when you Drive!

Jon Lewis — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:38:36 GMT

Have you heard? People are texting while driving. Yes, really! They are talking about passing laws to prevent this, and Leonard Pitts, Jr. wrote a good editorial with a quote, "Common Sense Should End Texting and Driving." In other words, do we really need laws to make people stop this activity? Well, we need them for drinking and driving, so I guess so. Problem is, how do you enforce it?

Think about what you are doing when you are talking on the phone or dialing a number or texting. Your mind is taken off the road. You are no longer driving defensively which is what you are taught in drivers education in high school. In reality, you are driving recklessly. As Mr. Pitts points out in his article: Is that score that important? Could you wait to message a friend? Is the call urgent? Probably not.

10-15 years ago, we didn't have as many cell phones in cars, and even when we did, we couldn't e-mail and text and get on the internet from our phone. Did we survive? Could we wait for that message? Could we just use the phone when we got home? When did everything become so urgent in society? We have to have it now.

Next time you think about using the cell phone in your car, think about others. Is there a child in your car you are putting at risk? What about the other motorists on the roadway? It takes a split second for a vehicle to inflict irreparable damage. Just Think about it!!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis

Should Supreme Court be a Settlement Tool?

Jon Lewis — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:32:23 GMT

I was in a mediation last week, and the defendants made an argument during our settlement negotiations. What was their argument? Even if you obtain a large verdict, we will appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Alabama, and it will likely be reduced or reversed.

Is this right? Is that what our Supreme Court is for - a negotiating tool? I thought the jury had the final say? Isn't that what our Constitution says?

When we try a case before twelve citizens and when those citizens listen to the facts and legal instructions from a Circuit Judge and when those same twelve citizens render a verdict in favor of our client, shouldn't the verdict stand unless there are exceptional circumstances? Not in Alabama, at least over the last ten years.

Take the State of Alabama v. Exxon for example. In that case, a jury unanimously determined that Exxon committed fraud against the State. Exxon appealed. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the verdict and sent it back to the trial court for another trial. In the second trial, the jury came back with another unanimous verdict against Exxon, and the verdict was larger this time. What did Exxon do? Appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama, and this time, they reduced the verdict substantially so that Exxon was not held accountable for their actions.

Next time you go to vote for a Justice, think about what they stand for. Are they going to be fair and rule according to the law, or are they going to be beholden to the special interest groups who help put them in office? What kind of Justice do you want?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jon Lewis