Young’s Michigan Supreme Court Controversial Cases
Robert Young: still working for the insurance industry.

[In]Justice Robert P. Young, Jr. and his activist “Engler Majority” drastically changed established Michigan law, harming Michigan families, our economy, the environment and our legal system.

• Young overturned a thirty-year law and ruled that citizens do not have the right to hold big polluters like BP and Enbridge accountable when their actions pollute our lakes and rivers. Even after the oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico and here in Michigan, Young refuses to hold these companies accountable for their pollution. Instead, he wants taxpayers to pay to clean up the oil companies' mess.

• Young says that corporations should be allowed to spend unlimited money to elect judges that will rule in their interests. He argued that Massey Coal, the company responsible for the West Virginia mine disaster last year, should be allowed to spend 3 million dollars to elect a judge to the West Virginia Supreme Court who later ruled to overturn a 50 million dollar verdict against Massey. The U.S. Supreme Court later rejected Young's argument.

• Young overturned decades of precedent to throw out a case involving a woman from Flint who was raped and murdered, ruling that the woman's daughter could not have a trial because she did not ask for it within three years of the murder, even though police did not solve the crime for sixteen years. Young has also been criticized by Michigan prosecutors for restricting their ability to prosecute cases of domestic violence against women.

• Young makes a $164,000 dollar salary, has accepted $40,000 dollars in raises, and receives lifetime taxpayer-funded health care. Yet Young used his power to protect his own pay and stop voters from deciding on a proposal to reduce the salary and perks of state lawmakers and judges like himself. And when court employees are forced to take unpaid furlough days to cut costs, Young takes paid vacation days instead.

• Young is a former insurance industry lawyer who has received hundreds of thousands dollars from corporate interests and ruled in their favor over eighty percent of the time, including giving legal immunity to prescription drug companies when one of their products harms or kills someone. Michigan newspapers say that under Young the court has "bent steadily toward big business and away from individual citizens," and "dramatically shifted power to lobbyists."

Note: As awful as Young’s court decisions are, the situation is even worse than it appears. Decisions like these by Young’s Michigan Supreme Court “set precedent,” that is they create new law that is binding upon everyone in the state! So these cases don’t just harm the people involved, they damage the body of laws that govern protect us all.

Lugo v Ameritech, 464 Mich 512 (2001). In a classic pro-insurance company decision, Young and his activist Engler majority recreated the discredited and abandoned legal concept of contributory negligence by throwing up a new technicality, the “open and obvious” doctrine. According to this reasoning, responsibility for dangerous conditions now disappears if that condition should be “obvious” to an average person, [even if, as in Luaff v Wal-Mart, the person who is injured because of the danger is actually blind and can’t see at all.] Strangely, Young and his majority also declared that no typical person could ever be seriously injured from falling in a pothole or on a sidewalk despite the tens of thousands of injuries and deaths that are caused by these exact conditions each year.

Reed v Breton, 475 Mich 531 (2006). Young’s activist court again acted to put the insurance industry first and changed decades of common law to make it much more difficult to prove the illegal sale of alcohol to a drunk driver who killed. The family of a person killed by a drunk driver was thrown out of court because they could not use testimony that the defendant admitted to drinking 20 beers before he killed someone while driving at 100 mph and had a .21 blood alcohol level. Young’s majority created a new impediment to accountability without any statutory basis.

Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004). Young and his activist court majority created a problem so serious that our Legislature wrestled with it for 6 years. Young’s Engler majority rewrote the long-standing Legislative language that outlines how seriously someone must be injured to qualify for Michigan’s mandatory No-Fault Auto Insurance benefits. The Michigan Supreme Court majority limited the rights of Michigan residents by inventing new language that is not in the statute. This new barrier denies persons who are seriously injured in auto collisions caused by negligent and even drunk drivers from having full access to the courts even though they are still required to buy No-Fault Auto Insurance under penalty of law.

Roberts v Mecosta General Hospital, 466 Mich 57 (2002), after remand 470 Mich 679 (2004). Young put insurance profits over people when he and the activist Michigan Supreme Court majority denied people injured by medical negligence [even though they already have a doctor’s-affidavit to certify their claims are meritorious] access to the courts, based on a hyper technical interpretation of a statutory pre suit notice document. The court required that more information be included in these pre suit notice documents, which are intended to encourage the parties to settle pre suit, than is needed in the actual documents filed with the court.

Burton v Reed City Hospital Corp, 471 Mich 745 (2005). The activist Michigan Supreme Court majority again tossed out a doctor’s-affidavit-certified, meritorious, medical negligence claim because it was filed too early, even though the legislature had removed the language from the statute allowing courts to dismiss claims for these types of reasons.

Waltz v Wyse, 469 Mich 642 (2004). Young and the rest of the activist Michigan Supreme Court majority created a huge payday for the insurance industry, and a crisis for Michigan families. Young’s cabal threw out decades of settled law and changed the way the statute of limitations is calculated in wrongful death cases denying the relatives of persons killed by medical negligence access to court despite the fact the claims were doctor’s-affidavit-certified as meritorious.

Nawrocki v Macomb Co Road Commn, 463 Mich 143 (2000). In a shocking move, Young and the activist Michigan Supreme Court majority virtually eliminated responsibility for the government to safely maintain public roadways. The court declared that the government entities that we created to maintain our safe roads have “no duty” to maintain guardrails, traffic lights, sidewalks, stop signs, warning lights and other critical parts of safe roadways. In one often-repeated example, if a traffic light is shining green in four directions and a speeding cement truck wipes out a family of five the governmental units we created to maintain safe roads are not accountable. Even if the light is not repaired and the same thing happens again the next day. Even if it happens every day for a week. According to the Young court opinion, the only part of the roadway for which the government has responsibility is the asphalt.

Cameron v ACIA, 476 Mich 55( 2006). In a dramatic change of the law, Young and the activist bloc on the Michigan Supreme Court took away the rights of minors and the brain injured to hold those responsible for their injuries accountable. The court shortened the statute of limitations to only one year for minors and brain injured persons in auto accidents in claims seeking No-Fault Auto Insurance personal injury protection benefits.

Wickens v Oakwood Healthcare System, 465 Mich 53 (2001). Young and the activist Engler Court majority not only upturned well-established law, they created a cruel Catch 22. Young and his voting bloc declared that a person cannot go to court to hold a wrongdoer accountable for the loss of an opportunity to survive [something that will result in their death later] until after they die, and yet if they do not die soon enough [within the two year statute of limitations] the person’s heirs will be denied court access.

Zsigo v Hurley Medical Center, 475 Mich 215 (2006). When a hospital employee raped a helpless patient in the hospital, Young’s pro-insurance Michigan Supreme Court majority created a reading of the law that found the hospital was not accountable. Once again ignoring existing law, Young’s voting bloc held that a hospital has no responsibility to protect patients –even helpless patients-- from employees who engage in intentional or criminal acts.

McKim v Forward Lodging Inc, 474 Mich 947 (2005). Young and his activist Michigan Supreme Court majority decided that an emergency medical technician could not access the courts to receive compensation for injuries received while doing his job trying to assist injured patients.

Robinson v City of Detroit, 462 Mich 439 (2000). Young’s activist voting bloc held that the government can escape all liability when it injures persons so long as they can prove that someone else was also partly at fault.

Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich 591 (2000). Young’s activist pro-insurance voting bloc reduced the protection offered to members of the public who are not paying customers of a business.

MacDonald v PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001). Young stepped up again to help his insurance industry funders and decided that businesses have no duty at all to protect patrons from dangers until they see an immediate risk of harm to a customer, and even then their only duty is to make reasonable efforts to call the police –effectively eliminating access to the courts for people harmed in such a situation.

Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 (2004). Young and his pro-insurance colleagues expanded the scope of immunity granted to the insurance companies of landowners, historically limited to large tracts of undeveloped land under the Recreational Land Use Act, now granting immunity to developed suburban lots.

Michalski v Bar-Levav, 463 Mich 723 (2001). Young and his Michigan Supreme Court majority eliminated the rights of handicapped workers to safe and reasonable working conditions.

Shinholster v Annapolis Hosp, 471 Mich 540 (2004). Young and the pro-insurance voting bloc barred injured people who seek medical care –but who are victims of bad doctors who make medical errors during that care – from seeking compensation for the medical error if the accident that originally sent them in for medical care was their own fault, reversing decades of established law.

Radeljak v Chrysler, 475 Mich 598 ( 2006). Young and his activist majority ran interference for the insurance industry by limiting access to Michigan courts for non state residents, even when the negligence occurred in Michigan.

Griffith v State Farm, 472 Mich 521 (2005). Young and his activist cadre scored a big victory for the insurance industry at the expense of quadriplegics. Young’s Michigan Supreme Court majority held there is no requirement to pay for otherwise covered food for a quadriplegic who chooses to live with a guardian rather than in an institution though allowing a quadriplegic to live at home is often much cheaper for the insurance company.

Haynie v State, 468 Mich 302 (2003). Young and his activist colleagues created a loophole allowing toxic and obscene sexual harassment in Michigan workplaces. Young and his cronies invented a legal definition that Michigan law only protected against harassment that was ‘gender based’ but ‘non-sexual.’ This decision destroyed much of women’s work place protections against such harassment.

Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562 (2005). Young’s pro-insurance majority overruled decades of established law and ended equitable tolling of claims for auto insurance benefits where the insurance company refuses to make a decision during the required time period. In short, this decision allows Michigan No-Fault Auto Insurance companies to avoid paying claims merely by delaying and waiting long enough before processing them.

Greene v AP Products Ltd., 475 Mich 502 (2006). Young scored another victory for the insurance industry at the expense of children. He and the activist majority changed the law and decided that a bottle of hair oil did not require a warning that the contents could be deadly and should be kept out of the reach of children.

Elezovic v Ford Motor Co, 472 Mich 408 (2005). Young again stood up in favor of sexual predators, changing the law for their benefit. Even though an employee properly informed two supervisors about offensive sexual harassment, and filed numerous grievances against the harasser, the Michigan Supreme Court majority decided that employer did not have ‘sufficient notice ‘of sexual harassment and kicked the employee out of court.

Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749 (2004). Yet another decision where Young protects sexual predators. His activist majority overturned a jury verdict in favor of the first female millwright at Chrysler's Jefferson Avenue Plant, who overwhelmingly proved that male employees sexually harassed her and that her employer failed to conduct a proper investigation and did very little to try to make the harassment stop. According to the dissenting Justices the decision was motivated by the Michigan Supreme Court majority dislike of the female employee’s attorney.

Magee v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 108 (2005). Young and his activist majority again changed Michigan law to protect sexual predators [and insurance companies]. Young’s voting bloc decided that even though a victimized worker’s claims of sexual harassment, sex and age discrimination and retaliation were filed within three years of the date she resigned, the suit was too late because none of the alleged conduct occurred within the three years before filing the complaint.

Sington v Chrysler Corporation, 467 Mich 144 (2002). Young and his agenda-driven majority, after consulting a standard dictionary, overruled the existing and well-established legal definition of the word "disability", under the Workers Compensation Act, making it far more difficult to be compensated for a normally covered work place injury.

Grimes v Dep't of Transportation, 475 Mich 72 (2006). Young and his activist court voting bloc overruled established law –and common sense-- and held that the shoulder of a roadway is not part of the "improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel" thus eliminating the government’s duty to maintain them free of serious defects. A man who became a quadriplegic due to an otherwise clear case of wrongdoing was kicked out of court though his injuries were caused by a serious defect in a shoulder of a road.

Scarsella v Pollak, 461 Mich 547 (2000). In a gift to the insurance industry, Young and his activist majority held that persons injured by medical negligence can be thrown out of court in situations where they have otherwise meritorious claims merely because there are minor unimportant omissions in court pleadings, despite the lack of any Legislative authority to do so.

Philips v Mirac Inc. 470 Mich 415 (2004). Youn and his activist, pro-insurance majority handed another gift to the industry by upholding an arguably unconstitutional statute applying to rental cars that arbitrarily sets and limits damages for injuries, disregarding law that says an individual has a constitutional right to have a jury decide the question of damages.

Hanson v Mecosta Co Road Comm, 465 Mich 492 (2002). Young and his activist Engler court endangered many innocent lives by changing the law so that the state has no liability for the defective design of a public highway no matter how many deaths or how much damage it might cause.

Rakestraw v Gen Dynamics Land Sys, 469 Mich 220 (2003). In another activist decision, Young and his ‘Engler four’ majority eliminated an entire class of workers’ rights to receive Worker’s Compensation for otherwise covered on-the-job injuries, overruling solid and long established law.

Jenkins v Patel, 471 Mich 158 (2004). In a textbook case of judicial activism, Young and the Engler-four ignored clear Legislative language and intent and created new law, deciding that a specialized limitation on non-economic damages in medical negligence cases could also be extended to wrongful death cases where it had never been allowed before.

Costa v Emergency Medical Services, 475 Mich 403 (2006). Young and his activist majority protected bungling bureaucrats by greatly expanding the privilege of “governmental immunity” and suspended all requirements that governmental employee defendants comply with the statutory medical malpractice requirements in lawsuits.

Mack v City of Detroit, 467 Mich 186 (2002). Young and his majority again changed the law to protect sexual predators by striking down local authority to protect workers on the job from being harassed for their sexual orientation.

Henry v Dow Chemical, 473 Mich 63 (2006). In another handout to the insurance industry, Young and his majority decided that persons needlessly exposed to carcinogenic Dioxins negligently released into the environment are banned from bringing claims, because they did not get cancer quickly enough, even though it is well known that it may take many years for such cancers to manifest.

Creech v Foot Memorial, 474 Mich 1135 (2006). In yet another in this activist jurist’s seemingly endless handouts to the insurance industry, Young and his majority endangered Michigan patients by denying court access to multiple patients who learned that they had been negligently exposed to an infection while receiving medical treatment because they did not develop symptoms quickly enough, despite medical evidence that it might take years to develop the symptoms.

Rory v Continental, 473 Mich 457 (2005). Even among Young’s insurance industry favors; this one stands out. Young’s majority disregarded decades of established law and allowed insurance companies to write illegally short statutes of limitations into insurance contracts, therefore taking away the insurance coverage people were required by law to purchase. This Young decision reversed decades of previous law banning unethical “unconscionable” contract terms and instead decided that whatever language is in a contract is fine because “individuals” have the ability to equally “negotiate” insurance policies with huge multi-national insurance corporations. The Young court voting bloc court determined that the fine print in an insurance contract would be enforced even where everyone agrees it is unreasonable to do so.
Buckner v City of Lansing. SC133772 (2008). Young’s activist court decided that cities don't have a duty to make sidewalks passable at all and can --as they did in this case-- just use sidewalks for dumping grounds. Young’s court majority re-wrote the language of the statute, expanding the application of its controversial Nawrocki decision that grants immunity to government agencies that fail to maintain safe roadways. The City of Lansing used a public sidewalk as a place to push/dump accumulated snow and leave it for the winter. Two young girls walking down the public sidewalk could not get around this impassable city-made obstacle and so were forced to walk in the roadway instead. A drunk driver hit them. Chantell Buckner, age 7, was killed, and Laquata Wright, age 13 suffered severe injuries [brain damage].
Nestle Waters 479 Mich 280 (2004) Young and his activist majority totally gutted Michigan’s Environmental Protection act by stating that the word “any” in the clearly-written act did not mean “any,” but instead meant “some.” The act allowed “any person” to bring an action to protect violations of the act. But the court not only ignored the language of the law [“any”] and replaced it with their own [“some”] but they defined “some” to mean almost no one. Young’s blatant judicial activism all but eliminated Michigan’s environmental protections under the act.
Stokes v Daimler Chrysler Young’s activist MSC gang-of-four court changed the law making it much harder for disabled workers by demanding they prove they are "disabled from all jobs paying the maximum wages within his qualifications and training,” by creating a burdensome new requirement out of thin air, the so-called "transferable skills analysis" that is not found anywhere in the statues

In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, 479 Mich 1 (2007) Young wrote the opinion upholding a Jim Crow law requiring any voter who lacked a photo ID to sign an affidavit of identity before voting, and then cast a provisional ballot.
Smith v Globe Life Insurance – Young and his activist cronies all-but destroyed Michigan’s model Consumer Protection Act in this infamous case that rendered the MCPA “toothless” according to the state bar association. In a remarkable sleight of hand, Young decided that the MCPA –created to protect consumers from unscrupulous businesses—did not apply to any business that was licensed and regulated in Michigan. The MCPA still existed, but did not apply to the businesses the Legislature created it to regulate.
Nestle Waters 479 Mich 280 (2004) Young and his activist majority totally gutted Michigan’s Environmental Protection act by playing word games. The act empowered “any person” to bring an action to protect violations of the act. But the court not only ignored the language of the law [“any”] and replaced it with their own word [“some”] but they further defined the word “some” to mean almost no one. Young’s blatant judicial activism all but eliminated Michigan’s environmental protections under the act.
Henry v Dow Chemical, 473 Mich 63 (2006). In another blow to the environment, and handout to the insurance industry, Young and his majority decided that persons needlessly exposed to carcinogenic Dioxins negligently released into the environment are banned from bringing claims, because they did not get cancer quickly enough, even though it is well known that it may take many years for such cancers to manifest.

Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 (2004). Young and his pro-insurance colleagues expanded the scope of immunity granted to the insurance companies of landowners, historically limited to large tracts of undeveloped land under the Recreational Land Use Act, now granting immunity to developed suburban lots.

Bob Young - Corporations Over People

You have seen and heard Bob Young's political ads on TV. What you havent't heard is Bob brag about some of his most infamous decisions:

• Young ruled to protect sexual predators against the claims of women who were the victims of workplace rape and sexual harassment.
• Young ruled in favor of Michigan's one-of-a-kind drug industry immunity law, which shields companies from responsibility when their products harm or kill people.
• Young ruled to restrict severely injured workers from receiving workers compensation benefits.
• Young ruled to protect drunk drivers by making it harder to hold them accountable for the deaths, injuries, and damage they cause.
• Young changed longstanding Michigan law, blocking citiziens' rights to take action and protect the environment.
• Young ruled to gut and effectively destroy Michigan's Consumer Protection Act, once of of the best in the nation.

Please keep this in mind when casting your ballot on November 2nd.

Seriously Injured Motorists Rights Finally Restored

On July 31, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court restored the rights of innocent victims to recover compensation for serious injuries caused by negligent and drunk drivers.

These rights were previously taken away by an act of unprecedented judicial activism perpetrated by Justices Young, Corrigan, Markman and Taylor in their now infamous Kreiner v. Fisher case. McCormick v Carrier has now reversed the Kreiner abomination and returns Michigan to the specific legal standards that were enacted by the Michigan Legislature when it passed the current law 15 years ago. In other words, this is not new law, but rather a return to the no-fault threshold passed by the Michigan Legislature in 1995.

The McCormick decision recognizes that the Kreiner decision, which it overruled, was nothing more than judge-made law that constituted a radical departure from the specific language and overall intent of the Michigan No-Fault Act.

It is reasonable to expect that this decision will actually reduce the number of lawsuits filed in circuit court for the reason that under the Kreiner decision, auto insurance companies were forcing victims to file lawsuits so they could defeat legitimate claims in court by imposing the draconian legal standards of the Kreiner case. Hopefully, this practice will end under McCormick, as insurance companies will now be forced to recognize legitimate claims and deal with innocent victims in a fair and just manner.

The McCormick decision should dramatically decrease the amount of appellate court litigation by returning Michigan to the stable and less litigious appellate court environment that existed prior to the Kreiner decision. In this regard, the majority opinion notes that in the nine years prior to Kreiner, there were less than 10 Court of Appeals cases per year dealing with the tort threshold. However, in the nine years since Kreiner was decided, there have been over 250 Court of Appeals decisions! By rejecting the Kreiner standard, the amount of appellate court litigation should dramatically decrease, thereby saving tax dollars and freeing up Michigan appellate judges to address other important legal cases.

Any argument by the insurance industry that the McCormick decision will increase insurance premiums should be flatly rejected as untrue and fear-mongering. In this regard, auto liability insurance premiums typically represent only about 20% of a person’s total auto insurance premium. It is estimated that 50%-60% of the typical total auto insurance premium goes to pay for collision and comprehensive coverages. Moreover, during the repressive six-year Kreiner era, auto liability insurance premiums never went down, thus establishing the fact that there is little, if any, link between the interpretation of the Michigan auto tort threshold and the cost of liability insurance. Under McCormick, the insurance industry will be forced to return some of the staggering profits it made during the last six years to auto accident victims who have been paying premiums intended to benefit them, not fatten the bank accounts of auto insurers.

The McCormick decision clearly illustrates the unfairness and injustice created by the Kreiner decision for people like Mr. McCormick. Mr. McCormick sustained a severe fracture to his ankle when his leg was run over by a truck. He required two operations to repair his shattered ankle. He was off work for 19 months and when he returned, was not able to resume his normal job duties. Medical testimony established that his injury had caused the onset of degenerative arthritis in his ankle joint, which is only bound to get worse over time. Victims like Mr. McCormick had never been denied compensation during the 37-year history of the Michigan no-fault law until the Kreiner decision came down six years ago. After that, victims like Mr. McCormick were routinely denied the right to hold careless and drunk drivers accountable for injuries that significantly affected their quality of life. It is because of the unfairness of Kreiner for people like Mr. McCormick that the Kreiner decision had become universally condemned by almost all knowledgeable observers, except those associated with the auto insurance industry.

Michigan has always intended that seriously injured motorists recieve compensation for injuries suffered at the hands of negligent and drunk drivers. As of July 31, 2010, those rights have now been restored. If you have suffered such an injury within the last three years, contact the Davis Law Center for a free consultation.
1-(877)280-7189 (toll free) or (248) 865-7740

DOG BITE STATS & TIPS

According to an Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I) study, dog bites account for one-third of all homeowners’ insurance liability claims, costing $387.2 million in 2008, up 8.7 percent from 2007.

Statistically 61 percent of dog bites occur at the owner’s home; and 77 percent are by the dog of a family member or family friend.

In September 2000, a Vet Med Today Special Report (JAVMA, Vol. 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000) listed the dog breeds most responsible for the 282 bite-related fatalities between 1979 and 1998. The top five breeds (themselves responsible for 64.9 percent of all dog-bite fatalities) were:

1. Pit bull (26.95 percent of all fatalities);
2. Rottweiler (15.6 percent of all fatalities);
3. German Shepherd;
4. Husky; and
5. Malamute.

Many people love and want dogs and simple precautions can be taken to make dog ownership safer and more enjoyable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta suggest:

• Owners should carefully choose your pet dog by evaluating the environment and lifestyle.
• Speak with a professional to determine the appropriate type of pet for you and your family.
• Neuter your dog to reduce aggressive tendencies.
• Never leave infants or young children alone with a dog.
• Be sensitive to cues that a child is fearful or apprehensive about a dog.
• Teach your childrenbasic safety around dogs.
• Dogs with histories of aggression are inappropriate for families with children.
• Owners should not play aggressive games with their dog (i.e. wrestling).
• If bitten, the bite should be reported immediately.

Dog Owner Liability

In Michigan, two types of law govern the liability or responsibility imposed on dog owners:

• Dog-bite statute: The dog owner is automatically (or strictly) liable for any injury or property damage the dog causes as long as the dog was not provoked and the person who was bitten was not trespassing.

• General Negligence: The dog owner is liable if the injury occurred because the dog owner was unreasonably careless (negligent) in controlling the dog.

A dog owner who is legally responsible for an injury to a person or property may be responsible for reimbursing the injured person for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering and property damage. Retaining an experienced attorney in this area of the law is always a good idea. Please feel free to contact the Davis Law Center toll free at 1-877-280-7189 with all your dog bite questions.

ONE STEP CLOSER TO JUSTICE

Yesterday, Michigan voters took a giant step in bringing back fairness and justice to our courts by voting for Diane Hathaway and ousting Clifford Taylor from the Michigan Supreme Court.

For years, Justice Taylor has legislated from the bench to further his own personal agenda and that of the special interests that placed him on the Court in first place. Along with remaining justices Robert Young, Maura Corrigan and Stephen Markman, Justice Taylor obliterated decades of long standing Michigan law in order to rule in favor of big insurance companies and corporate america in over 85% of his decisions.

By the results of this election, it is evident that the Michigan public has finally had enough. This is only the first step however. Justice Robert Young is up for reelection in 2010 and his record toward ordinary citizens is as unfair, if not worse than that of Taylor. Keep up the fight and justice will finally be restored to the citizens of Michigan.

Testimony By Phone?

Oakland court debuts program that will allow proceedings by phone, video.
The Detroit Free Press (10/23, Brasier) reports, "Harried attorneys soon will be allowed to make court appearances via phone call in Oakland County Circuit Court, as part of a pilot program the court hopes will save litigants money." The program, called Judge On-Line , will "allow witnesses to testify via live video from other parts of the country or even the world." According to court officials, "the practice could be particularly effective in civil cases, such as medical malpractice lawsuits, in which experts often are subpoenaed to testify."

Beware of Supreme Court Justice Clifford Taylor

In the past ten year's Michigan's highest court has become a dangerous laughingstock in legal circles. The MSC is known best in the legal community for making up statutory language, citing to Wikipedia and to dime-store dictionaries to support its untenable legal reasoning, and for toxic and destructive bickering among its GOP majority members.

While our state's highest court overrules decades of legal precedent and resorts to citing cases of Civil War and WWI vintage to support bizarre new doctrines, its opinions are pockmarked with accusations among the Justices of mutual mental illness, unlawful acts, abuse of power, cover ups and conspiracy. Justices quote the lyrics to Broadway musicals and trade insults, but somehow through all the dark comedy and shrill rhetoric the so-called "gang of four" majority manages to rule against Michigan families and in favor of powerful special interests 85% of the time.
In a survey of attorneys who argue cases in front of the Supreme Court:
Justice Clifford Taylor was rated: -Lowest in preparedness -Lowest in efficiency -Lowest in thoroughness -Lowest in overall knowledge of the lawFrom Michigan Lawyers Weekly, January 21, 2008

However, for Michigan families the results are not funny at all. Michigan now has the nation's only absolute "get-out-of-jail-free" immunity for drug companies that kill thousands with drugs they knew were dangerous. The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled to protect drunk drivers who kill, to protect sexual predators who rape women in Michigan workplaces and to reward murders who elude police.

The Michigan Supreme Court has decided that the road commissions we created to make our roads safe have "no duty" regarding missing stop signs, traffic lights that shine green in all four directions or bridges so poorly designed that families slide into rivers and oncoming traffic.

The Michigan Supreme Court gutted Michigan's Consumer Protection Act, destroyed our Environmental Protection Act and enabled carpetbagger Ward Connolly to bring his puppet machine into Michigan and destroy affirmative action.

Justice Clifford Taylor has ruled against middle-class families and in favor of big insurance companies and corporate special interests over 80% of the time. Source, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, July 2, 2008
The Michigan Supreme Court has repeatedly ignored the intent of our elected lawmakers, ignored the wording of Constitutionally enacted laws and dolled our drastic changes to the law that benefit the multinational insurance industry and other powerful political players.

It is no coincidence that while this "new" Michigan Supreme Court has laid waste to our state for the benefit of powerful political contributors our economy has gone into a nose dive.

When those who rape, and kill and poison families are allowed to escape accountability the massive costs are dumped onto the backs of Michigan taxpayers.


Current Michigan Supreme Court-- Worst in the nation? Media report University of Chicago Study

Current Michigan Superme Court--harming Michigan familiesJustice Caucus MSC election information

Legal professionals vote for the 2008 MSC Justice candidatesLegal poll

Legal professionals rank Taylor next-to last among Michigan justicesSee the rankings


Incumbent Justice Cliff Taylor's websiteList of contributors to Taylor’s campaign.

In November, you have an opportunity to end this assault on our civil justice system and your individual rights. Stop the insurance companies and big business from running our State and say no to Clifford Taylor.

Please check out his challenger and remember Judge Diane Hathaway on election day:
Judge Diane Marie Hathaway's websiteMedia on Hathway nomination

The Truth About The McDonald's Coffee Case

When people find out I am a personal injury attorney, it is amazing how many times the McDonald’s coffee case still comes up. Almost always however, they are surprised and enlightened when they hear the true facts of the case:

• Plaintiff was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992.
• While stopped, Plaintiff attempted to add cream and sugar to her coffee, placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid however, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
• Plaintiff suffered third degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, buttocks, and genitals.
• Plaintiff was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridements which are surgical treatments to remove dead tissue.

Plaintiff’s Attempt To Settle

• Plaintiff offered to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused and forced a trial.

McDonald's Admissions and Testimony

• During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992.
• McDonald's also admitted that it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain the best taste. This was despite the fact that most other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's and coffee from your coffee maker at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
• McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
• This same quality assurance manager also testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees and that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
• Expert thermodynamics testimony also established that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.
• Testimony also established that had McDonald’s simply lowered the temperature of its coffee to 155 degrees, Plaintiff would have avoided a serious burn.

The Verdict

• The jury awarded Plaintiff $200,000 which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found the Plaintiff was 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Plaintiff 2.7 million in punitive damages for its callous disregard for the safety of its customers. (Michigan does not allow punitive damages).
• The trial court later reduced the punitive award to $480,000 even though the judge described McDonald's conduct as reckless, callous and willful.

State Farm Accuses Clients Of Fraud To Avoid Paying Claims

What happens when you are seriously hurt in an automobile accident and have State Farm Insurance? Based upon the cases we're handling in this office, it's very possible State Farm will accuse you of fraud and refuse to pay your doctors' bills or lost wages resulting from the accident.

For instance, one of our clients was involved in a severe automobile accident and has undergone surgery on her neck and another surgery for her shoulder. She is currently scheduled for another surgery for her low back and has been unable to work for more than a year. All of this client's many doctors have told State Farm that these injuries were caused by the accident and that the client cannot work. Realizing it would have to pay thousands of dollars to the client's doctors and in lost wages, State Farm denied the claim alleging that our client somehow committed fraud. As a result, we were forced to sue State Farm to make it pay the benefits our client is entitled to. In court, State Farm attempted to have our client's case thrown out of court for her alleged fraud. I am happy to report that we prevailed today and the trial court was not persuaded by State Farm's spurious arguments whatsoever.

In another case, our client was involved in a severe roll-over accident. He sustained a serious back injury and his doctor, neurosurgeon and neurologist all have indicated to State Farm that he needs signficant medical treatment and is unable to continue working until he recieves the necessary care. State Farm refused to pay and accused our client of lying about his address at the time of the accident. Our client then gave State Farm a stack of documents and proof that he lived at the address he claimed but they still refused to pay. State Farm even hired a private investigator that videotaped our client coming and going from the address he claimed but they still refused to pay. We filed suit and were successful in getting the Court to Order State Farm to immediately begin paying for Plaintiff's necessary care and treatment. Hopefully now, our client can receive the medical treatment he so desperately needs to allow him to return to his normal life.

In another case, our elderly client's $60,000 vehicle was vandalized and torched to a crisp while parked on the street in Detroit. Not wanting to pay the replacement cost for this vehicle, State Farm actually accused our senior citizen client of torching it herself, forcing her to file suit as well. Until we win this case, and because of State Farm's accusations, our senior citizen client, on a fixed income, is forced to continue making payments on a car she no longer has.

Finally, we had another case where an elderly lady sustained injuries and treated with a chiropractor and orthopedic surgeon for a short period of time. State Farm refused to pay these bills which were nominal which forced our client to file suit. During trial, State Farm then accused our clienf of fraud to justify its non-payment of benefits. Not only did the jury award our client every penny she asked for, the trial court was so offended by State Farm's unreasonable denial of this claim, it ordered State Farm to pay an additional $20,000.00 in penalties.

The purpose of this post is to advise people with State Farm insurance how State Farm is presently handling some serious claims and the lengths it will go to avoid paying you the benefits they owe you. Given this type of conduct, it is probably adviseable to retain a knowledgeable attorney early on to assist you with your claim.

State Farm and Allstate Bad Faith Requires Insurance Reform

While our Michigan Supreme Court allows insurance companies like State Farm and Allstate to unreasonably deny and delay paying claims without any real penalties whatsoever, other states do not worship the insurance industry like Michigan does and do not put up with such conduct.

Check out the recent developments regarding State Farm and Allstate practices in other states:

On January 8, 2008 in Missouri, State Farm was forced to pay $8 million in punitive damages after its refusal to pay a $10,000 claim made by their insured when her car was stolen. Not only did they not pay, they tried to have their own insured prosecuted and fought this claim for over 10 years. The courts were appalled by State Farm's actions and penalized it severely for the way it treated its insured who it had gladly taken premiums from before the insured had the nerve to make a claim.

In Florida, Allstate can no longer write automobile insurance policies and is presently being fined $25,000.00 per day because it refuses to turn over documents that establish Allstate's business practice of delaying claims endlessly, paying less on claims and forcing their own insureds to retain an attorney and fight them in court if they don't accept Allstate's nominal settlement offers.

Unfortuantely, Michigan will not penalize an insurance company for wrongful conduct. In fact, our Michigan Supreme Court justices (Clifford Taylor, Maura Corrigan, Robert Young and Stephen Markman) embrace this type of conduct and have systematically made it easier for companies like State Farm and Allstate to wrongfully refuse to pay benefits and delay paying benefits for no valid reasons whatsoever. Since former Governor Engler put these 4 Justices on the bench, over 90% of their decisions have favored the insurance industry at the expense of insureds and victims of injury.

The only way to keep State Farm and Allstate from engaging in this type of conduct is through INSURANCE REFORM and/or to make sure you do not reelect Justices Taylor, Markman, Corrigan or Young when they come up for reelection. Please contact your legislators and urge them to protect consumers and put the brakes on an insurance industry that has run amok in the State of Michigan.

Click here to find your legislator

Michigan Judges Victimize Innocent Pedestrian

In 2005, Cynthia Jones was a pedestrian crossing the street. She was run over by a driver that wasn't paying attention. The impact snapped her leg in half. The surgeon had to cut her leg open and use plates and screws to piece her leg back together. She was in the hospital for 4 days following the surgery and required in-home health aides once she was discharged home. Early on, whenever she left the home, she had to use a wheelchair or a walker and needed assistance with many of her daily activities around the home. Once she fully recovered, she was left with a permanent limp and needed to use a cane to walk. Despite this, our Michigan Court of Appeals says her injuries weren't severe enough and threw her case against the negligent driver out of court.

How could this happen? Thank Supreme Court Justice Cliff Taylor, his fellow Justices Markman, Corrigan and Young, Appeals Court Judges Brian Zahra, Helen White, Peter O'Connell and the Michigan Senate.

Justice Cliff Taylor authored the Supreme Court decision in Kreiner v. Fischer. In this case, Taylor, Markman, Corrigan and Young essentially re-wrote the Michigan Auto No-Fault Law. They put a spin or an interpretation on it that was never intended by the Michigan legislature when they wrote it or the many courts over the last 10 years that have interpretted it. They took the law which stated that in an auto accident, an injured person could only bring a legal claim for damages against the person who injured them if they suffered a "serious impairment of an important body function". They took the definition given to us by the legislature and raised it to the point that a woman whose leg is shattered, who requires surgery to fix it, who is in the hospital for 4 days, who needed a wheelchair and in-home care, who has a permanent limp and needs to permanently use a cane to walk CANNOT have her day in court.

Unfair? Absolutely. Especially when you consider that the Michigan House of Representatives passed legislation earlier this year to correct the problem created by Taylor, Young, Markman and Corrigan. Unfortunately, when it got to the Senate......... they buried it.

Why? Because the people that fund the campaigns and war chests of the Republican Senators and the Republican Justices on the Supreme Court want it buried. State Farm doesn't want you to know about it. The Chamber of Commerce doesn't want you to know about it. AAA doesn't want you to know about it. So the solution to the problem created by Justice Taylor will stay buried in the Senate. Had the Senate acted on the bill which the House of Representatives passed many months ago, Cynthia Jones would have had her day in court. Cynthia Jones wouldn't have been denied justice. Her case was decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals on the opening day of deer season just last week by Judges Brian Zahra, Helene White and Peter D. O'Connell who found that plaintiff's general ability to lead her normal life wasn't impaired. Outrageous.

Next November, Justice Cliff Taylor has to run for office as a Justice on the Michigan Supreme Court. Remember his name. Remember what he did to people like Cynthia. And this isn't the only thing to remember. Remember what his collegues on the Michigan Supreme Court think of him.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver, a fellow Justice to Taylor has publically accused and factually supported the following charges against Justice Taylor:

1. The majority of four - Taylor, Young, Markman and Corrigan - have suppressed any dissent by the other Justices

2. As Chief Judge of the Court, Taylor has abused his position and acted in a disorderly and unfair fashion.

3. He has failed to recuse himself when he has a direct conflict of interest.

She wrote a memorandom to the clerk of the court so that her objection to Cliff Taylor being appointed as Chief Justice would be noted. She wrote:

I cannot support Chief Justice Taylor or any member of the majority of four to serve as Chief Justice at this time. I would support either Justice Michael Cavanagh or Justice Marilyn Kelly.

This dissent to the election of Chief Justice Taylor as Chief Justice reveals only the "tip of the iceberg" of the misuse and abuse of power and the repeated disorderly, unprofessional and unfair performance and conduct of the people's judicial business by the majority of four, Chief Justice Taylor, and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman.

I believe it is my duty and right to inform the public of repeated abuses and/or misconduct. 16 The majority of four's suppression of dissent, and attempts to suppress dissent, mishandling of administrative duties, and repeated disorderly, unprofessional, and unfair conduct are matters of legitimate public concern. Over the past year and longer, the majority of four has advanced a policy toward greater secrecy and less accountability. I strongly believe that it is past time to let sunlight into the Michigan Supreme Court. An efficient and impartial judiciary is "ill served by casting a cloak of secrecy around the operations of the courts."17

What's an impartial judiciary? It is one that avoids conflicts of interest.
What's a conflict of interest? How about receiving 10's of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from DaimlerChrysler during the 2000 election campaign, then when that same donor gets hit with a $30 million dollar judgment after losing a trial, wait till their appeal makes it up to the Supreme Court [in 2002] and then wipe your donor's $30,000,000.00 debt away........ You donate to my campaign, I can makes your legal problems go away. That, to me, seems like a conflict of interest.

Don't you think he should have excused himself from hearing that case? So did the other Justices on the Supreme Court. So did Rich Robinson, who testified on behalf of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network in front of the House Judiciary Committee on October 10th, 2007.

Remember this when you have to vote for a new Justice for the Michigan Supreme Court. Vote against Cliff Taylor.

Remember what your Senator did [or didn't do] in burying the solution to the Kreiner problem.

Remember the Appeals Court Judges like Zahra, White and Peter D. O'Connell who continue to deny justice to people like Cynthia - people like you and me.

Remember these people when it comes time to vote.

Roundabouts

Traffic Circles or Roundabouts are becoming increasingly common in our area. While they are designed to improve traffic flow and increase safety, the American public is not familiar with them which can cause serious accidents and injuries, especially for pedestrians or cyclists. In fact, where Roundabouts have been used in Europe for several decades, they have been found to be one of the unfriendly features on the public roads for pedestrians and cyclists. In Europe, the evidence suggests that as many as 20% of all cycle crashes occur at roundabouts and roundabouts are 4 - 8 times more dangerous for cyclists then traffic signal controlled junctions. Studies have also shown that unfamiliarity with Roundabouts can actually increase the incidence of accidents at an intersection.

Since Roundabouts seem to be the wave of the future in Michigan, the General Rules for using a modern roundabout are found below:

Making a through movement at a multi-lane roundabout

1. Find street and direction in which you wish to go on roundabout signs located before intersection.


2. In the case of a roundabout, either lane that enters the roundabout can be used to go straight through the intersection.


3. As you approach the roundabout, look ahead to see any pedestrians and bicyclists that might be entering the intersection and yield to them.


4. Yield to oncoming traffic at the yield line.
   When sufficient space and time to enter traffic occur, enter the roundabout.


5. Maintain your path upon entering until you come to the desired exit. If you enter from the left lane you should proceed to the inside path (left side) of the circulatory roadway. If you enter from the right lane you should proceed to the outside path (right side) of the circulatory roadway.


6. Use your right turn signal to let other drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians know that you are exiting the roundabout at the next exit as soon as you pass the exit prior to the desired exit.


7. You should maintain your path through the exiting maneuver. If you exit from the outside path (right side) of the circulatory roadway you should proceed to the right (outside) exit lane. If you exit from the inside path (left side) of the circulatory roadway you should proceed to the left (inside) exit lane. When exiting from the inside path, watch for vehicles on the outside path that may continue to circulate around the roundabout.


8. As you exit the roundabout, look ahead to see any pedestrians and bicyclists that might be entering the intersection and yield to them.

Making a right turn movement at a multi-lane roundabout

1. Find street and direction in which you wish to go on roundabout signs located before intersection.


2. When approaching a multilane roundabout you should be in the right-hand lane to make a right-hand turn.


3. As you approach the roundabout, look ahead to see any pedestrians and bicyclists that might be entering the intersection and yield to them.


4. Yield to all circulating traffic at the yield line.


5. Use your right turn signal to let other drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians know that you are exiting the roundabout at the next exit.


6. When sufficient space and time to enter traffic occurs, enter the roundabout.


7. Stay to the right and proceed immediately out of the roundabout and into a successful right-hand turn.


8. As you exit the roundabout, look ahead to see any pedestrians and bicyclists that might be entering the intersection and yield to them.


9. This type of right-hand turn can be made from every approach to the roundabout.

Making a left turn movement at a multi-lane roundabout

1. Find street and direction in which you wish to go on roundabout signs before intersection.


2. When approaching the roundabout, you should be in the left-hand lane to make a left-hand turn.


3. As you approach the roundabout, look ahead to see any pedestrians and bicyclists that might be entering the intersection and yield to them.


4. Yield to oncoming traffic at the yield line.


5. When sufficient space and time to enter traffic occur, enter the roundabout. You should enter to the inside path (left side) of the circulatory roadway.


6. Use your right turn signal to let other drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians know that you are exiting the roundabout at the next exit as soon as you pass the exit prior to the desired exit.


7. Stay to the left, the inside path, until you come to the desired exit.


8. You will now proceed from the inside path (left side) of the circulatory roadway, across the outside path (right side), and exit the roundabout in the inside (left) exit lane. When exiting from the inside path, watch for vehicles on the outside path that may continue to circulate around the roundabout.


9. As you exit the roundabout, look ahead to see any pedestrians and bicyclists that might be entering the intersection and yield to them.

General rules for bicycle use of the modern roundabout

1. If you are comfortable riding in traffic, take the lane and circulate like you are a vehicle, making sure you yield to traffic in the circle when entering.


2. Ride at the speed of the circular roadway to discourage cars from passing you.


3. When you exit the roundabout, use your right hand signal.


4. If you are uncomfortable riding through the roundabout, dismount and walk your bike as a pedestrian at the designated crosswalks.

General rules for pedestrian use of the modern roundabout

1. Always stay on the designated walkways approaching and leaving the roundabout


2. Designated roadside paths and crosswalks are often shared by bicyclists and pedestrians.


3. Watch for bicyclists when you are at or near the roundabout intersection


4. You should only cross at the designated crosswalks; NEVER cross to the center island.


5. Once getting to the desired crosswalk location, wait for an acceptable gap in traffic before entering the crosswalk. As when crossing any other intersection, look for oncoming cars before entering the crosswalk.


6. Do not assume that cars will stop to let you cross. Only enter the crosswalk when there are no cars coming or when you are certain that all of the oncoming traffic is yielding to you.


7. Proceed to the splitter island. The splitter islands offer a safe refuge between the two different directions of traffic flow allowing you to concentrate on traffic coming from only one direction at a time.


8. Again, wait for an acceptable gap in traffic before entering the crosswalk.


9. Just like before, do not assume that cars will stop to let you cross. Only enter the crosswalk when there are no cars coming or when you are certain that all of the oncoming traffic is yielding to you.


10. After crossing roadway, proceed to your desired location.

For a funny, but somewhat accurate description of a modern day Roundabout, click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3uFeauIRrA

Workers' Compensation Wage Loss Benefits

An injured worker in the State of Michigan can only receive certain specified benefits, (1) wage loss benefits, (2) medical benefits and (3) rehabilitation benefits. This post will deal only with wage loss benefits.

CALCULATION OF WAGE LOSS BENEFITS
Generally, an injured worker will recieve 80% of the after-tax value of his or her wage loss regardless of whether the worker is totally or partially disabled from working. To determine this amount, the worker's average weekly wage is calculated by averaging the highest 39 of the last 52 weeks of wages earned by the worker prior to the injury. 80% of the after tax value of this amount is then determined from tables published by the Workers' Compensation Agency that take into account the worker's tax filing status, the number of dependents and the state and federal tax rates.

MAXIMUM BENEFITS PAYABLE TO INJURED WORKER
The law also provides a maximum rate of benefits paid to the worker which is 90 percent of the state average weekly wage for the year prior to the injury. This means that a worker will not receive benefits higher than this amount regardless of how high his or her earnings might have been. The State average weekly wage can be accessed at http://www.michigan.gov/wca/0,1607,7-191--38774--,00.html. Generally there is no minimum benefit.

TAXATION OF WAGE LOSS BENEFITS
Wage benefits paid to an injured worker are generally not subject to either state or federal income tax.

DURATION OF WAGE LOSS BENEFITS
For wage loss benefits to be paid, the disability resulting from the injury must last at least one week. If the disability extends beyond a week, benefits begin on the 8th day following the injury. If the disability extends two weeks or more, the worker is entitled to benefits from the date of the injury until the disability ends.
Depending on the severity of the injury, wage loss benefits may be paid for weeks, months, years or for the rest of the worker's life. This is unlike Michigan No-Fault law that only requires an insurance company to pay for the first 3 years of wage loss regardless of the extent of the injury.

OTHER BENEFITS AND THEIR RELATION TO WAGE LOSS BENEFITS
Wage loss benefits are required to be coordinated with many other benefits to which an injured employee may be entitled. With respect to Sickness & Accident Benefits, Pension Benefits or other similar benefits paid for by the employer, the employer will be entitled to a dollar for dollar reduction in payable wage loss benefits. For example, if a worker received $100.00 per week in S&A benefits paid for by his or her employer, the wage loss he or she receives will be reduced by $100.00 per week for the period S&A benefits are paid.

Both the employer and employee pay in equally for social security benefits. Therefore, there is only a 50% reduction for social security retirement benefits.

Social security disability benefits are already reduced based upon an injured employee's receipt of worker's compensation benefits so there would be no reduction in the amount of wage loss paid to the employee

Help Repeal Michigan Drug Immunity Law

Families devastated when loved ones are injured or killed by deadly prescription drugs, taxpayers forced to bear millions in costs for their medical bills and economic losses, and a system that rewards drug makers with windfall profits from deadly drugs.

That is the legacy of Michigan’s drug industry immunity law.
Michigan’s immunity for the drug industry is absolute. No matter how dangerous the drug, how many are killed, how grossly negligent the drug maker was, no matter how much they knew beforehand--there is no accountability.

Now a courageous group of victims, experts and lawmakers is battling to repeal this deadly law through House bills 4044, 4045, 4046, and Senate bill 0043.

Support the repeal of Michigan’s drug industry immunity now!

As many as 55,000 people have been killed by the FDA-approved painkiller Vioxx, according to Bush administration officials. Executives of Vioxx-maker, Merck, knew as early as 1997 that their blockbuster drug caused heart attacks. They sold it anyway, and made more than $11 billion dollars in sales. Because of Michigan law, victims in Michigan --alone out of 50 states-- are not able to hold Merck accountable.
Find out more about the battle of Michigan’s drug industry victims
Tell your lawmakers: Repeal drug industry immunity now!

Attendant Care - Benefits Insurers Like To Keep Secret

Chances are that if you are injured in an autombile accident, your insurance company will initially let you know that they will pay for reasonable and necessary medical expenses, mileage to and from doctors, up to $20.00 per day for replacement services (routine household services) and 85% of your lost income.

What your insurance company probably won't volunteer is that you may also be entitled to attendant care benefits. Attendant care services basically include activities a licensed practical nurse would perform. These would be services such as helping with medications, bathing, exercises, helping the injured person move around the house and in and out of the bathroom, massages, dressing, etc. These types of services can be performed by anyone and unlike replacement services, are not limited to a certain maximum charge per day. The level of care provided will often dictate the hourly rate that is paid for the service provider. In cases of severe injury, attendant care may be required 24 hours per day and benefits can easily exceed $15,000.00 per month which the insurance company is obligated to pay.

There have been numerous instances where insurance companies will fraudulently allow a family member to perform attendant care services but only reimburse them at the $20.00 per day replacement service rate. In cases where this type of fraud on the part of the insurance company has been discovered, multimillion dollar verdicts and/or settlements have resulted.

If you or a family member have been injured in an autombile accident and require assistance with your activities of daily living, do not forget to make a claim to your insurance company for attendant care benefits. If you need assistance with pursuing this type of claim or if an insurance company is only paying you $20.00 per day for services which fall into the attendant care category, contact an attorney immediately. Failure to do so could result in a financial disaster for you and your family.

Drunk Drivers Have No Responsibility For Causing Injuries In Michigan

Did you know that Drunk Drivers in the State of Michigan have no responsiblity to innocent victims that they injure?

That is precisely the way our No-Fault Law is being interpreted by many of your Michigan Judges. In Gagne v. Schulte, Court of Appeals No. 264788 (Decided 2/28/06) a drunk driver defendant, turned his truck into oncoming traffic and hit plaintiff’s vehicle head on. The impact threw plaintiff into the windshield. Her torso bent the steering wheel, and her knee slammed into the dashboard. She suffered a concussion, lost consciousness, and was rushed to a nearby medical center.

For the first few weeks after the accident, plaintiff could barely move about even with crutches, and her father assisted her with such tasks as getting to the bathroom and the bathtub. An MRI revealed a torn ACL and meniscus in her knee requiring major reconstructive surgery.

When her surgeon followed up with plaintiff, he detected serious muscle atrophy in plaintiff’s right quadriceps, which further destabilized her knee. The dangers of this loss of support around her knee led doctors to continue the limitations on plaintiff’s activities until the muscles regained their strength. Plaintiff went to physical therapy to rebuild the muscle, but when plaintiff returned more than seven months after surgery, her surgeon still did not feel her muscles had strengthened enough that she was ready to return to work. According to the surgeon, “even things like descending stairs are difficult for patients with quad atrophy, very difficult, and such that the knee will feel like it wants to buckle or give out, and at times it may, producing a higher chance of further injury.”

Because Plaintiff was only twenty-one years old at the time of the head-on collision, was hobbled indefinitely by the torn ACL and meniscus, was forced to undergo major surgery,and had permanently lost a measure of stability in her knee, Plaintiff sued the drunk driver to pay for the harm he caused her.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored all of this and decided to protect the drunk driver rather than the innocent victim and threw the case out of court, leaving the victim without any recourse and allowing the drunk driver to escape any responsbility for his actions.

If you want our laws to stop protecting drunk drivers, please contact your legislative representatives by clicking here for a directory. There are several bills pending to address this issue but so far, the leaders in the legislature have been stalling their passage.

Insurance Companies Lie To Justify "Tort Reform"

The Washington Post yesterday reported yesterday that official documents filed with state regulators and in statements to public officials, medical malpractice insurance companies consistently inflated the amount they estimated they would pay out in claims, according to a study released today by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).

Insurers then used the overstated figures to justify enormous increases in doctors' premiums and pressure legislators to enact lawsuit restrictions, the study concludes.

"By inflating their estimated 'losses' as much as 66 percent, medical malpractice insurance companies have misled regulators, lawmakers and the public and overcharged physicians and other health care providers," said FTCR's Harvey Rosenfield. "Because all insurance companies use the same flawed accounting practices, it is likely that the insurance industry is responsible for several billion dollars in premium overcharges over the last few years, a period during which premiums have soared.

The study shows that malpractice insurance companies consistently overstate how much they expect to pay in claims and in amounts far beyond the margin of reasonable error," said FTCR's Rosenfield. "By manipulating their books to misrepresent their 'losses,' the insurers have profited in two ways. First, they have used the inflated numbers to justify rate increases that were unnecessary and excessive. Second, they have invoked their exaggerated loss estimates to promote legislation allowing these insurers to limit how much compensation they have to pay out to victims of medical negligence.

This study is available by clicking here

Verdicts Are Paid By Insurance Companies - Not People

While a jury is supposed to be fair and impartial, it is amazing how much important information is kept from the jury during a trial of a personal injury case.

One of the most unfair rules is that a jury is not allowed to learn if a Defendant has insurance coverage. What every potential juror should know however is that young person or little old lady sitting at the Defendant's table has insurance coverage that will cover every dollar you as a juror award to an injured plaintiff. Their attorney has been provided by the insurance company at no cost and not one penny you award to the Plaintiff will come out of that individual's pocket.

If the case involves an automobile accident, insurance coverage is mandatory in the State of Michigan in order to operate a vehicle. Dog bites and slip and falls are all covered under a homeowner's or business policy of insurance and most homeowner's policies have coverage of at least $300,000.00. Most Doctor's all have insurance coverage. The problem is that you as a juror are not allowed to hear evidence of insurance coverage at the time of trial so many jurors are reluctant to fairly compensate an injured Plaintiff because they feel like they will be hurting the Defendant.

If you are called to be a juror in a personal injury case, remember: No matter how sympathetic the Defendant sitting in the court room may appear, nothing you do to fairly compensate an injured Plaintiff will affect that person in any way.

Slip/Trip and Falls Cause Serious Injury and Death

Some people, including some Michigan Supreme Court Justices, might have the impression that serious injuries cannot result from someone slipping/tripping and falling. Such a belief however casts a blind eye to a very significant problem in our country.

The Center for Disease Control and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health have documented an astounding amount of severe injuries and deaths caused by trip and falls.

For instance:

• In 1999, over one million people suffered a slip, trip or falling injury and over 17,000 americans died as a result;
  

• On average, the direct cost for one injury associated with such a slip and fall is $28,000.00;
  

• More than a third of adults aged 65 or older fall each year;
  

• Of those who fall, 20-30% suffer moderate to severe injuries that reduce mobility and independence, and increase the risk of premature death;
  

• The total cost of all fall injuries for persons over 65 in 1994 was $27.3 billion;
  

• By 2020, the cost of all fall injuries is expected to reach $43.8 billion;
  

• The most common fall-related injuries are fractures of the hip, spine and forearm and injuries to the back; and
  

• Fall-related hip fractures lead to the greatest number of health problems and deaths.

Slip/Trip and falls often occur when a business owner or landowner fails to properly maintain their property or even warn of unreasonably dangerous conditions such as "black ice," spills in aisleways, negligently stacked shelves, etc. When business owners fail to get rid of these hazards or warn their patrons about them, you can see what disastrous consequences may result. Keep this in mind the next time some judge, legislator or political pundit starts spouting off about the alleged need for tort reform.

Overview of Michigan No-Fault Auto Insurance Coverage

The State of Michigan requires every car owner to obtain automobile insurance. The basic automobile no-fault policy consists of the following:

PIP - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION

If you are hurt in an auto accident, this part of your no-fault policy will pay all of your medical costs, including mileage to and from your medical providers. It will also pay 85% of your wages, up to a maximum amount ($4293 per month in 2005), for the wages you would have earned if you had not been hurt. This coverage only lasts for up to three years however.

If you are seriously injured, you may also collect attendant care benefits, paid at an hourly rate, which are practical nursing services performed by untrained medical personnel. These services can include serving meals, transporting to appointments, bathing, administering medication and assisting with various therapies. No-fault insurance also provides up to $20 per day in replacement services which pays for services you are no longer able to provide for yourself or your family because you are injured, such as housekeeping and yard work.

If you are killed in an accident, your policy will pay your family up to the maximum monthly amount for three years, based on what they would have received from your earnings and fringe benefits.

Often, the insurance company will try and sell coordinated coverage or what is called excess medical or wage loss coverage. This coverage coordinates your no-fault PIP coverage with any health or disability policy you have (except Medicaid, Medicare or a Medicare supplemental policy). If you decide to do that, your health or disability plan becomes the primary payer for medical or wage loss expenses, and the auto policy only covers remaining medical or wage loss expenses. If you are thinking about buying coordinated coverage (not recommended to my clients) for some reason, please note that no-fault coverage is not managed care and you can pick your own doctors. If you elect coordinated care, you have to comply with the guidelines of your health care plan.

PROPERTY PROTECTION INSURANCE (PPI)

No-fault will pay up to $1 million for damage your car does in Michigan to other people's property, such as buildings and fences. It will also pay for damage your car does to otherpeople's properly parked vehicles.

RESIDUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE - BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE (BI/PD)

The no-fault law protects insured persons from being sued as the result of an auto accident except in the following circumstances:

• If you cause an accident in Michigan inwhich someone is killed or seriouslyinjured.
  

• If you are involved in an accident inMichigan with a non-resident who is an occupant of a motor vehicle not registered in Michigan.
  

• If you are involved in an accident in a state other than Michigan.
  

• For up to $500 in damages to another person's car, which is not covered by insurance, if you are 50% or more at fault in the accident.
  

Unbelievably, the minimum required BI/PD coverage limits in the State of Michigan has not changed for over 20 years and remain only:

• Up to $20,000 for a person who is hurt or killed in an accident.
  

• Up to $40,000 for each accident if several people are hurt or killed.
  

• Up to $10,000 for property damage in another state.
  

While your Michigan lawmakers refuse to stand up to the insurance industry and raise these limits, some Michigan judges and in particular Justices Taylor, Markman, Corrigan and Young on the Michigan Supreme Court are also bowing down to the insurance industry and restricting seriously injured victims of motor vehicle negligence from ever having their day in court to recover these paltry amounts to assist with their disabilities.

Nevertheless, if these cases actually make it to trial, juries may award more than these minimum coverage amounts. If this happens, you are responsible for paying the amount not covered by your policy. To protect yourself, you may wish to purchase extra liability insurance.

OPTIONAL INSURANCE COVERAGES

There are some optional insurance coverages you may wish to consider which are not required under Michigan law.

For the most part, your no-fault insurance does not pay for repairs to your car if it is damaged in an accident. The only kinds of auto insurance that pay for repairs to your car are collision and comprehensive coverage.

Collision Insurance

This coverage pays for repairs to your car when it is damaged in a crash. There are three basic kinds of collision insurance to choose from: broad form, standard, and limited. Collision insurance is usually sold with a deductible which is the money you agree to pay toward the cost of repairs before the insurance company steps in and pays the rest. The larger the deductible, the lower the cost of your collision insurance. Broad Form collision pays for damages regardless of fault, with a deductible that applies only if you are substantially at fault. Standard collision pays for damages regardless of fault, with a deductible that always applies. Limited collision pays only if you are not substantially at fault, and may or may not have a deductible.

Comprehensive Insurance

This coverage pays for your car if it is stolen or for repairs if it is damaged by a falling object, fire, flood, vandalism, or collision with an animal.

Uninsured Motorists / Underinsured Coverage (UM / UIM)

Uninsured Motorist coverage kicks in if an uninsured motorist seriously injures you or a member of your family. Underinsured coverage pays you the difference between the amount of Underinsurance coverage you have and the amount of BI/PD insurance the negligent driver had at the time of the accident. Beware, these coverages must be purchased in an amount over and above the amount of BI/PD coverage you have. Since insurance companies are sneaking clauses into their policies severely limiting their liability for these types of claims despite the amount of coverage you have purchased, it is very important you read the policy closely to make sure you actually have the coverage you think you have purchased.

What To Do After An Automobile Accident

Insurance companies and Michigan courts are doing everything possible to take away the rights of seriously injured victims in automobile accidents. Because of this, it is extremely important to take the appropriate actions following an automobile accident:

• Make sure everyone is safe and call an ambulance if anyone appears to be injured;
  

• Call the local or State Police to the scene;
  

• Obtain names, addresses, drivers license numbers and phone numbers of all persons involved in the accident;
  

• Obtain the names, addresses and phone numbers of all witnesses to the accident;
  

• Obtain license numbers and state registrations of the other vehicles involved;
  

• Exchange insurance information with the other driver(s) including name of the company, policy number and phone number of the insurer;
  

• Be observant and note specific details about the accident such as the time, location, appearance of the roadway, weather conditions, presence or absence of skid marks, location of vehicles at the time of impact and where they came to rest;
  

• Note the extent and location of any physical damage to the vehicles. If possible take pictures;
  

• Listen for any statements or admissions made by the other driver;
  

• Do not give any statements or make any admissions to the other driver(s);
  

• Note whether the other driver(s) received a traffic ticket;
  

• Obtain medical treatment immediately if you think you are hurt and notify your autombile insurer that you were injured in an autombile accident;
  

• Consider first talking with an attorney if and when you are contacted by the other driver's insurance representative.
  

If the other driver did not have insurance or the accident was a "hit-and-run", your policy may include uninsured motorist coverage. If so, you should be aware that some of the few insurance companies that offer uninsured motorist coverage require a police report be made within 24 hours of the accident as a requirement to collecting these benefits down the road.

Automobile accident law has become extremely complex in the State of Michigan and it is important that all necessary steps be taken to preserve your rights. If you have suffered injury in an automobile accident, please contact the Law Office Of Neil A. Davis, (248) 865-7740 for a free consultation.

Judicial Attacks On Michigan Motorists

A Comment in today's Free Press by MICHAEL DABBS,president of the Brain Injury Association of Michigan and spokesperson for the Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault, clearly sets forth how the pro-insurance appellate judges of the State of Michigan are taking away the rights of Michigan citizens who are involved in automobile accidents.

For instance, It has always been the law that accident victims are entitled to pursue claims against at-fault drivers for noneconomic damages if the injury constitutes a "serious impairment of body function." Recently however, the insurance industry has succeeded in convincing the Michigan Supreme Court to interpret this legal requirement in a way that will disqualify large numbers of accident victims who have sustained significant injury, including brain injury, from holding at-fault drivers accountable for damages. Interestingly, in response to ballot proposals in 1992 and in 1994, Michigan citizens twice rejected similar immunities for at-fault drivers. In spite of that clear expression of public sentiment, the insurers have had their way in the appellate courts and the rights of Michigan citizens are being eroded daily by our courts in favor of the deep pockets of the insurance industry.

As stated by Mr. Dabbs, "The time has come for all Michigan drivers to become fully knowledgeable about the important legal rights and insurance benefits available to them under Michigan's model no-fault insurance act and to become vocal and active to ensure that those rights and benefits are not eroded by legislation and court decisions." I could not agree more.

To read the Free Press article in full click here

Contact your legislative representatives
by clicking here for a directory

Your Rights In The State Of Michigan

I find that most of the clients that come into my office have no idea what the Michigan Supreme Court, certain Court of Appeals judges and their conservative legistative representatives have done to whittle away their rights as consumers, workers, motorists and as injured victims of negligence.

In fact, I have had the difficult task recently of having to inform families of individuals that suffered severe harm as a result of taking dangerous drugs such as Vioxx and Bextra that the State of Michigan is one of the only States in the Country that grants vitual immunity to pharmaceutical companies no matter how dangerous their product is and no matter how serious an injury its product causes.

In an environment where the insurance industry and the judges it helped elect are doing everthing in their power to eliminate your right to hold careless doctors, manufacturers of dangerous products and negligent operators of motor vehicles accountable for their actions, it is especially important to have an attorney on your side that knows the issues and will fight for your rights.

Check back for future posts regarding automobile accidents, workers compensation, medical malpractice, product liability, dog bites and how many of your elected judges and justices will torture words and logic to obtain a result favorable to big business and the insurance industry.