Oregon Injury Attorney Blog

The New York Times reported that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHSTA) withheld evidence that cell phone use while driving does, in fact, raise the risk of injury. This is no large surprise, but what is really troubling is that the NHSTA withheld the study's release, citing fear of angering Congress.

Two organizations, Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety, filed a Freedom of Information Act request, often called a "FOIA" request, for the information. The Center for Auto Safety link provides further links to the actual studies.

I recall that detractors of the cell phone bill cited a lack of good studies supporting the notion that cell phone use while driving presents a hazard. Well . . . . . here you go.

The Oregonian ran a front page story on the striking increase in mental illness among soldiers returning Iraq and Afganistan Vets. This study, from the American Journal of Public Health , is one of the first to suggest that the higher mental illness rates are due to the fact that more of the soldiers serving in the Middle East are older, and reservists. On a positive note, increased awareness about PTSD and a willingness to discuss the issue may factor into the increase in reported cases.

I've had the honor of representing several Veterans, including Viet Nam Vets. Saigon fell when I was ten years old, and I never thought that I would be representing Veterans from that conflict so many years later. I expect that our troops will be dealing with the effects from these wars for years to come, and hope we are better prepared to offer the help they deserve.

Other Links:

Iraqi War Veteran's Association

National Veterans Association

A recent study from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration(NHTSA) found that car drivers are using less alcohol, but that motorcyclists are twice as likely to drive drunk. Still, the study found that overall, drivers found with alcohol above the legal limit continues to decline sharply.

This may be a bad rap for motorcyclists. I reviewed the study, and there is no real description of how the tests were conducted, except that it was through road side surveys. Assuming that road side surveys involved folks pulled over for driving while impaired, I wonder if the lopsided results are due more to the fact that it may be easier for a police officer to spot a drunk motorcyclist rather than a drunk driver driving a car.

A recent blog in the Oregonian cited a study showing that autumn, not summer time, is the most dangerous time for traffic collisions on Oregon roads. This proves my assumption incorrect, which is probably a function of living on the Coast. Still the article cites the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) numbers, which show August as the most dangerous month.

Other Links:

The Michigan Study

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I could not resist posting on this recent NPR story featuring an interview with Senator Grassley of Iowa. I do not know this Senator. I am sure he is a good man, and comes from a state that has been confused with Heaven. But in this case, he had his "talking points" handed right back to him.

Grassley is concerned about Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sotomayor, and the fact that she may consider empathy, or her background, in deciding a case. Now Justice Alito said just about the same thing, but perhaps because a fellow Republican nominated Alito, there was no cause for concern.

Supreme Court nominations are no small matter, but just because a conservative President nominates a judge to the Supreme Court, there is no guarantee that the nominee will follow the President on every issue. The best example is Chief Justice Warren, an Eisenhower nominee. I am no Supreme Court scholar, but The Warren Court changed the legal landscape, and is considered one of the most liberal Supreme Courts in U.S. history.

Then there is Justice Harry Blackmun. A Nixon appointee, Blackmun did vote conservatively during his early years on the Court, but as his tenure progressed, voted more with the liberal side of the Court.

Other Links:

Oyez, A Web Site Dedicated to Supreme Court History

Supreme Court Blog

This recent OPB story shows how a tragedy can sometimes result in preventing future harm to other Oregon motorists. We've all driven through rural parts of the state where a tractor or other heavy piece of equipment needs to use the road to get from here to there. It slows traffic, and is a bit inconvenient, but farmers have a job to do, and we eat the food they provide, so we oblige. Some motorists do not, and there is a provision in the traffic code that stiffens penalties for careless drivers involved in collisions with "vulnerable road users." Like many terms in statutes, this one has its own definition. In this case, the definition applied only to those vehicles "without an enclosed shell."

Nathan Gourley was delivering hay in a hay stacker vehicle when a careless driver struck his vehicle, killing the young Gourley. Because the cab of the hay stacker was enclosed, the stiffer penalties did not apply. Now, because of his parent's advocacy in the Oregon Legislature, the law extends to all vulnerable vehicles.

An Oregon Live blogger recently discussed the pro-consumer gains made in the Oregon Legislature this year. Changes to existing laws include health care reform, expansion of the lemon law statute, and increased coverage for Oregonians who were injured and suffered property damage in auto accidents. Some legislators voted against the measures, arguing that in tough times, more regulation kills jobs. However, when you look at a few of the bills, it's really amendments to existing regulations, and one could even argue it helps the economy.

For example, minimum property damage coverage has increased. Instead of driving around in a dented up car, a motorist can now take their car to the shop for repairs because the insurance will cover the bill. The local body shop gets paid, it's employees get paid, and there is more money in the local economy. Do rates go up? Maybe, but probably not all that much.

Under Oregon's mandatory Personal Injury Protection coverage, the maximum amount of disability benefits is increased. Now an Oregon driver injured in an auto wreck has a better chance to pay the bills, and keep their head above water if they are disabled in a wreck. If anything, this helps the local economy.

I read this recent story about stalls with Medicare reimbursements. This, like the Social Security hearings backlog, is a significant problem for Oregon and Washington personal injury victims.

As the American population ages, the number of people on Medicare increases. If a retired person on Medicare is injured in an auto accident, or due to the fault of another, Medicare may end up paying some of the medical expenses. Medicare is health insurance, but it is provided by the federal government. But here is the problem.

Let's say you are injured in a car wreck in Oregon. If you have auto insurance, your insurance will pay medical bills up to a certain amount, and over a certain period of time. Right now, it's $15,000.00 or one year. But let's say you are injured seriously enough to have to stay in the hospital, or even worse, have a surgery. Then, chances are, your medical bills are going to exceed what your Personal Injury Protection provides. If this happens, your health insurance will take over, and pay your bills.

Any health plan that pays bills to an accident victim that is seeking compensation is going to want to be paid back. So if your health care plan paid bills, and you make a claim, if you recover on that claim, you are going to have to reimburse the health plan for the benefits it provided. Put another way, you and your health plan are in the same boat; you both have suffered a loss. Most plans require reimbursement, because it does not want to pay for medical care caused by another insurance company's negligent insured. This is what we in the law call "subrogation."

Medicare is like any other health care plan. It pays your medical bills, and if another insurance company's insured caused the injuries, it is going to want its money back. The problem with Medicare is that it takes so long to tell you how much it wants for reimbursement. Private health plans will provide this information in a number of days, but with Medicare, it takes months.

When we have a client insured by Medicare, it can take several months to get a reimbursement figure, and this can cause a delay in getting a settlement paid to our clients. We try to anticipate the amount Medicare paid by reviewing the explanation of benefit forms, and itemized Medical bills. Still, if there is a discrepancy, Medicare can go after everyone involved.

The GM bankruptcy is affecting accident victims. On June 1, 2009, GM filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection, which will allow the company to re-organize, and sell it's assets to a new company. The Judge overseeing the bankruptcy approved the plan, but it may leave motor vehicle accident victims in the cold.

When any person or company files for bankruptcy, it sometimes results in a complete "discharge" of any claims, which includes claims from banks, vendors, and in this case, accident victims. This means that company or person filing bankruptcy is no longer required to pay a creditor, which could be an injured party. In some cases, where the company or person seeking bankruptcy protection reorganizes, the claims still exist, but may be severely discounted, resulting in payments for pennies on the dollar.

This is a unique case in many ways. Well, for one, it's GM. Second, the federal government is a big stake holder. Under this plan, GM is selling many of its assets to a new company. Any person with a claim that they were injured due to a defective GM product will not have a claim against the new company, but from the company that is left behind, or the "old" GM. The problem is that the old GM may not have sufficient assets to pay these claims, leaving these accident victims at risk of little or no compensation whatsoever.

This right to compensation is not automatic. These motor vehicle accident victims must prove that GM defectively designed or manufactured the particular product, and that defect caused the victim injury. This is no small task. However, if a victim were to prevail in court, it may be for naught. An appeal is in the works to object this part of the plan.

Anyone injured in a motor vehicle wreck because of another's negligence usually does not face this issue. If the negligent driver is insured, and files bankruptcy, the case will proceed, because the assets or judgment that pays the motor vehicle accident victim usually comes from the negligent person's insurance policy, not assets.

NPR recently reported on Alzheimer's patients trying to get Medicare coverage sooner than later. The general rule is that a disabled person on Social Security Disability must wait two years from the date their disability began to become eligible for Medicare. Apparently, Congress wanted to make sure that people were really sick, and really needed medical care, before they were enrolled in the Medicare system. There are a few exceptions, but for most, there is a two year wait. Another premise underlying the two year wait is the notion that most people are insured, and unless they are made to wait, these folks will cancel their insurance and get on Medicare to save money.

Obviously, this is not the case, especially in today's health care environment. I have read of some proposals in Congress, which are part of the health care reform push, that would decrease the wait time, but it is a gradual reduction of the wait time, over years, that offers no quick fix. It will interesting to see how the Congress addresses this issue.

Other Helpful Links:

Congressman's Green's Blog

Amputee Coalition of America Fights To Eliminate Two Year Wait Period