I'm getting worse offers than ever on my run of the mill soft tissue MVA cases. I have nothing to support this but my hunch is that companies know people are more desperate than ever for money and have lowered offers accordingly. Also I'm trying harder than ever to get folks to PT instead of chiro. The soft tissue chiro cases are yielding less than 2 x meds.
I don't evaluate cases on multipliers, but over time I've come to the following conclusions on smaller soft tissue MVAs here (very conservative jurisdiction): 2x meds is not a good settlement. It's not a god awful settlement either. Sometimes it is good enough for a client to say they don't want to drag it out for months through litigation, sometimes it isn't. 2.25 x meds is often enough to satisfy the client. Still not a great settlement, but it's not awful either. 2.5 x meds in a soft tissue case is almost always enough to make a client happy and I consider it a good result on a soft tissue run of the mill MVA 3 x meds on a soft tissue run of the mill MVA .....is never offered barring aggravating liability circumstances.
When he says "meds" he's talking in entirely different number ranges than you are. The medicals you talk about for soft tissue cases would be surgery cases here.
I'm typically talking about $5-10k in medical bills for a soft tissue MVA case. Initial ER +20 visits to chiro or something like that.
Seems like liability carriers here will usually ignore or "not accept" MRIs on a soft tissue case and/or health insurance carriers won't pay for them until someone has done PT. A health insurance carrier might pay for a MRI if the patient has done chiro, I'm not sure on that one.
I have a worker's compensation case where the medical records suggest that the adjuster is in the doctor's ear about cutting treatment off and releasing the guy back to work. So the doctor, after only a few visits, a round of PT, and no MRIs, recommends no further treatment, puts Client at maximum medical improvement, and releases him back to work with restrictions not to carry more than 5 lbs, not to bend, squat, etc., and no prolonged sitting or standing. And since no job exists that can accommodate those restrictions, the doctor basically just determined that Client is permanently and totally disabled. "Hey adjuster, although unfortunate for Client, we accept your chosen physician's findings and we'll just go ahead and take the $400,000+ that Client should be paid. TIA." Spoiler I highly doubt that holds up but that doctor is screwed.
Here the doc doesn't talk to adjusters, they talk to nurse case managers. I usually terminate the nurse case manager for that very reason. In a situation like that, here, they'd get an EME (employer medical exam) that would say your client is not disabled , is MMI, and can work full duty. Then I'd file for an IME. But regardless those kind of restrictions really help the value of the case. They may want to depose the doc to get him to reverse the restrictions but they might also be afraid of what he may say
No case manager was assigned to this claim so it's been the adjuster in direct contact. In fact, the first sentence in the latest medical record is "Spoke with [adjuster]" and the final sentence is "Will follow up as needed per [adjuster]." The thing is, this is the WC Carrier's chosen doctor and there's a pretty decent argument under the statutes and case law that the WC Carrier is stuck with that doctor and his opinions unless either (1) my client disputes that doctor's opinions and demands to be seen by another doctor; or (2) the doctor recommended one course of future medical care between at least two alternatives, in which case the dispute would be which course of treatment to take. But I have an argument that, in the absence of either of those, there's no "dispute" between the parties and it's basically decided. From what I have read, it's possible that the WC Carrier's only way out of this would be for the doctor to change his opinion, in which case both he and the adjuster would be getting absolutely grilled at deposition. Who knows what a judge would do, but I might have a good bit of leverage here.
Since it is their doctor, they will probably get him to sign a letter saying those restrictions were temp or some other way of getting him out of this. The easy out is for him to say "of course I didn't mean this guy has permanent significant restrictions after a few visits and no MRI, no doctor in their right mind would mean those are permanent based on so little objective evidence." Let's be honest, those kind of restrictions after a few visits and with so little objective evidence are not going to stick. I do think that just having those restrictions alone gives you some leverage for now.
Haha yeah I'm not naïve. I know they're not going to pay me that kind of money and that no judge would make them. I'm just going to fuck with them.
I've been in the same situation before and tried to make as much hay as possible with it before they could fix it
fucking allstate client has 18k in medical bills the allstate attorneys have fucked this case up beyond belief. there were two plaintiffs and they allowed both my office and the other plaintiffs lawyer to depose their client. so two depos. the defendant lies and contradicts herself multiple times we deposed my treating doc back in like april. allstate agreed to the date and we confirmed the day before. we wait over an hour, make multiple calls and send emails, they never show, so we go ahead and depose the doc. they are like omg let us reschuedle and we will pay the doc. we say ok and provide them dates. they never follow up. we are now outside the discovery deadline. allstate lawyer just calls and offers 9500 and is like yall should be able to make this work other law offices take offers like this.
I just don't understand what kind of kangaroo bar association yall have going in Harris County. Never in my life has a defense lawyer failed to appear at a treating physician depo. That is unheard of.
also, for the motion to compel hearing this morning-- the court was running behind, so my assocaite was working on other stuff with the court zoom on another screen. i guess she gets distracted and the hearing begins without her. she busts in a few minutes later and is like omg i'm so sorry i was working on other things when yall said you were running behind. judge basically says--no big deal, and this defense lawyer has done this multiple times so i basically argued your side of the hearing for you and also berated him lol
we didn't ask for sanctions. we just want complete discovery responses and he has 14 days to get them to us.
weak. If yall start asking for sanctions and popping people on all this bull shit you describe they wouldnt be doing it left and right.
keep in mind we have ~50 cases with in house allstate lawyers. if we get sanctions granted then i'm guessing this allstate lawyers job is all sorts of fucked up. no desire to do that.
Several years ago, we had a younger partner in our other office have a small breakdown of sorts and resign on a random weekend afternoon. I inherited a bunch of his files, particularly the ones that were close to trial. I started reviewing the one set the soonest and saw a notice of a neuro deposition and no transcript. I called plaintiff's lawyer to find out what the fuck happened. He told me that the dude just didn't show up twice, so the second time he went ahead and took the deposition. We tried the case, and Plaintiff read the transcript in -- plaintiff's direct, no cross. I still somehow ended up with a favorable verdict. After the trial, one of the jurors told me that they thought it was "bullcrap" that I didn't get to ask that doctor any questions.
Talking to jurors after a trial is sometimes the most horrifying thing when you find out what they think is important.
I have a pretty contentious 18-wheeler case. Injection non-surgery case. Gut liability against them as it is on video. It should settle but these defense lawyers are terrible. They hired an investigator to film my client. My client is a chunky hispanic woman. They filmed her briskly running through her front yard. After we received it, I filed a motion to compel asking for all the footage they had. They represented to the Court that it was indeed all of the footage and then proceeded to lambaste my client in the pleading, essentially calling her a fraud, based solely on the footage. Clearly they felt pretty good about themselves and thought this footage was their smoking gun. There was one tiny problem with the footage, though. It wasn't my client. It was her chunky hispanic friend. They learned that today for the first time as they deposed her. This boomer went on for five minutes building up to this masterpiece of a surveillance video he thought he had. He felt so proud of himself. After she told him it was not her, he said "uhh" long enough on the record to take up four pages of the transcript. I think I will use the dissolve setting on a screenclip of the video to tangibly show its death.
everyone you are welcome for suggesting the dissolve feature on powerpoint please send me royalties each time you use it
that's why you talk to them before the trial in the form of a focus group, and you focus group like 10 times at least if it is a big case. But I'm just being a smart ass, always horrifying you are correct
Half my clients are Latino (trying to make it more) and I have had this same thing happen at least five times. “WE GOT YOU, JUAN!” “Nah, bro. That’s my cousin.”
I had one such incident that changed the way I approach economists: Years ago, I represented AIG in a UM case back when they still wrote auto policies. Young kid who got hit by a drunk driver. He had some PT, a herniated cervical disc and a surgical recommendation, though he hadn’t had surgery yet and hadn’t even had injections. Liability was conceded and my CME doc shit the bed on the stand. Jury comes back with a $300k verdict. A couple of days later one of the jurors tracks down my number and calls me at the office. He was a nice guy who just wanted to touch base and let me know he thought I did a really good job. So in the middle of the conversation the guy asks me out of curiosity what happens to the money they awarded the kid. I asked him what he meant, and he said he wanted to know what controls were in place to keep the kid from just spending the money. So after I tell him about how it all works after fees and costs and the rest goes to the kid in a lump sum the guys sounds flabbergasted. He says, “I don’t understand. They had the numbers guy come in and talk about putting the money in a fund for the future. Are you telling me he could just go out and buy a Mercedes with that money? We thought the numbers guy was saying that the fund was controlled by the court and if he needed money for a treatment he had to ask for it. That’s why we agreed to give him money! If we knew that, we never would have awarded him anything!” I have never again treated an economist as a minor annoying witness.
One good -- nay, great -- thing about Zoom mediations is not having to spend hours upon hours in a room with Gina the adjuster from Missouri, where you both have zero in common and neither of you want to be there. Turning off your camera and microphone is much more subtle than starting at your phone. The bad thing is having to wear a shirt with a collar.
Another trial canceled due to covid. Been working non stop on this one too including last weekend. OC emailed court today and said she had symptoms.
.... wow you think being in a room with an adjuster is bad? sitting in a room with my clients is infinitely worse. also i don't think i've worn anything other than jeans and a polo to a mediation or deposition ever.
I fucking hate trials. At least from a Defendant's perspective, what's so great? More often than not, you're only in trial because one Party is being wholly unreasonable. The questions of law are determined by some geriatric judge that's generally funded by the plaintiff's bar, and his judicial decisions (that you work so hard on) are often determined by which side of the bed he woke up on. The questions of fact are decided by a jury of your peers (yea right -- do a mock jury and see if they focus on what you deem important). You fall behind on work because you're prepping for trial ... while you're in trial, you fall behind on all your other cases. So when you're finally done with trial, you have to work your dick off to catch up on your other cases just to keep your head above water. Wash, rinse, repeat. The only solution is to work 10-12 hour days before, during, and after trial. Sounds fun! You spend 95% (99%?) of your legal career starting at a computer -- with the hope that you can go to trial. Then when that's done, you have to spend more time staring at a computer to make up for what you missed because of this amazing trial. I get it from a Plaintiff's lawyer's perspective, you're always one lick away. From a insurance defense lawyer's perspective, what's the big fucking deal? You represent a faceless company that prints money, you're not fighting for a noble cause, and the trial can end or get continued on a whim -- one Party settles, the Judge gets busy, etc. It's all up in the air. Maybe if I was a criminal lawyer, or fighting for something worth a shit, I'd care. But I don't get how any insurance defense lawyer can possibly enjoy trial. Sorry, just one of those mornings. Eat Arby's.
I mean if you hit a big lick at trial as a plaintiff lawyer what are the odds that you actually collect that $? slim to none? settlements you get a check in a few weeks.
Here the judges are far more likely to be in line with the defense bar. Also I have no clue what is great for trial for a defense lawyer but even if you're working for a faceless company I would think proving that someone's claims are completed inflated, disproving liability , proving that they are faking their injuries, or they are generally full of shit, or are asking for way more than they reasonably are entitled to would be fun.
Different strokes, I'm sure. One trial in 10 years makes it ring pretty hollow. I'd much rather find fun in my free time versus working every Sunday in perpetuity because of the fun trial.
BamaNug I think you're just in the wrong profession. I know that sucks because you already have so much invested. By the time you go to law school and pay for it etc and all the rest of the bullshit you don't really want to just switch gears or can't really afford to.
Two zoom depositions today. My client was blasting cigs in one of them. Classy move. She would literally turn the camera away so we couldn't see what was happening, rip a drag, exhale it audibly, then answer the question. When she first got on she was openly smoking on screen.
I wasn't talking about just that. Just from reading this thread and the travel thread I don't think the practice of law is his jam