Jump to Navigation

Texas Personal Injury Blog

Our mission:

To keep our clients, their friends and family safe and informed.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE INVESTIGATES FRED LOYA INSURANCE AND OLD AMERICAN COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Texas Department of Insurance is investigating two insurance companies for alleged violations of Texas insurance regulations. The companies being investigated are Fred Loya Insurance Company and Old American County Mutual.

The Texas Department of Insurance has apparently received a high number of complaints about claims being made with these two insurance companies. Those complaints from Texas drivers included such practices as delays in processing claims, unsatisfactory offers or settlements, denial of claims and liability disputes. Those complaints mirror our experience with Fred Loya Insurance Company on cases we have handled. As a general rule, when we see that our client is involved in a car wreck with someone who is driving a vehicle that is insured with Fred Loya, we expect that regardless of the facts, the claim will either be denied completely or that an offer will be so low, that in almost every case, a lawsuit will need to be filed.

Although Fred Loya Insurance Company and Old American County Mutual Insurance Company are not the largest insurers in the state of Texas, the number of complaints lodged against those insurers is significantly greater than the number of complaints filed against much larger insurance companies. The Dallas Morning News reported that it conducted its own analysis of complaints, and that their analysis revealed that 10 of the 25 largest auto insurers in the state - those with more than 100,000 policies - had worse-than-average customer service records. The two companies at the top of the list of complaints were Fred Loya Insurance Company and Old American County Mutual. (See www.dallasnews.com )

Fred Loya, which collected more than $283 million in premiums last year, performed nearly four times worse than a typical Texas insurer, according to the state-calculated "complaint index." Old American County Mutual, a Dallas-based company that collected nearly $539 million in premiums, had a complaint index of 3.42 - or about three and a half times worse than a typical company. No other insurance company besides Old American County Mutual Insurance Company and Fred Loya Insurance Company broke 2.0 on the "complaint index", which would be twice the average. Even more interesting and perhaps more telling about the complaints these two companies have received is that the two insurers have a business relationship. Fred Loya is listed as one of several managing general agents for Old American County Mutual Insurance on its website.

Old American County Mutual Insurance Company declined to comment on the high complaint numbers it has received. However, the explanation given by Fred Loya Insurance Company is probably a good word of warning to current and potential Fred Loya customers about how they can expect to be treated if they find themselves in a position where they need to make a claim. Edgar Meza, vice president of claims for Fred Loya Insurance Company, said many of the complaints stem from (1) differences over the market value of cars that are totaled and (2) from accidents involving a person driving a Fred Loya-insured vehicle who has been excluded from coverage.

Taking Mr. Meza's statements at face value apparently there is a large number of people who are having difficulty in obtaining what they perceive to be a fair settlement from Fred Loya Insurance Company when a vehicle is a total loss. This is a problem not only for people who purchase a policy with Fred Loya insurance company, but it can also be a problem for people who are not insured with Fred Loya if the person who causes the accident is insured with Fred Loya because those claims will typically need to be processed by and paid for by Fred Loya. These insurance companies know how important it is to people to have transportation. Insurance companies know that when people faced with the choice of either (1) having no transportation or (2) settling a claim cheaper than they should just so that they can have transportation and keep their jobs, a lot of people will settle for a less than fair amount. As a result, even if you are not insured with Fred Loya you need to make sure that your own auto insurance policy carries collision and uninsured/underinsured motorist protection and preferably even rental coverage to give yourself the most protection possible in the event that your vehicle is involved in a collision with a Fred Loya insured or for that matter, an uninsured motorist.

Mr. Meza's second explanation for the high number of complaints against Fred Loya is an even scarier comment about the practices of not only Fred Loya Insurance Company, but also some of the smaller insurance companies who are writing insurance policies that exclude coverage in what would normally be a covered situation. As Mr. Meza points out, Fred Loya Insurance Company serves a unique customer base, typically lower-income drivers who have trouble obtaining insurance. In our experience, that frequently translates to drivers with a bad driving record who are now forced because of a previous wreck, drunk driving incident or some other legal problem to prove to a court that they have auto insurance. These types of drivers will typically secure the absolute cheapest insurance they can find, and they will select the absolute minimum amount of coverage required by law.

One thing that Fred Loya is doing to reduce the cost of insurance is to severely limit is exposure by limiting who is insured. On a standard Texas auto insurance policy, the owner of the vehicle has the ability to allow his or her friends and family to drive the vehicle with his or her permission. If the driver to whom the vehicle is entrusted causes a wreck, under a standard Texas auto insurance policy, the driver is covered under the policy unless that particular driver has been specifically identified as an "excluded driver." The typical scenario for an excluded driver is the family who has a teenage driver that is causing the insurance rates for the entire family to sky-rocket. In that situation, many families opt to list the teenager as an "excluded driver" and to require the teenager to get his or her own insurance policy.

In contrast to standard Texas auto policies, Fred Loya Insurance Company is writing some policies that essentially exclude all other drivers except for the named insured. To those who are not involved in handling claims, this may not sound like it would create a big problem, but it does because it creates an increased risk of "uninsured" drivers. In fact, the Texas legislature created a law, The Safety Responsibility Act, to protect the motoring public from uninsured drivers. Western Alliance Ins. Co. v. Alberez, 380 S.W.2d 710 (Tex. App. - Austin 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Under this Act, the insurance company insuring the vehicle must provide a policy of insurance which complies with the Texas Transportation Code §601.073.

These "we don't cover anyone but you" policies create a number of problems. For example, it creates a situation where if the policyholder lends his vehicle out to a neighbor, a friend or even to a spouse, there is no coverage.

  1. There is no liability insurance coverage to pay for the damages they cause to someone else's vehicle, property or for personal injuries;
  2. There also is no coverage for damage to the insured's vehicle because an excluded driver was driving the vehicle;
  3. In addition, it also puts the driver of the vehicle in a position of receiving a "no insurance" ticket because the policy does not cover anyone except the named insured;
  4. For those insureds who were required by a court order to insure the vehicle, those policy holders may find themselves in violation of a Court order because the vehicle was not technically insured;
  5. If a coverage dispute arises, sometimes an insurance company will decide that the insurance company is in a better legal position if it pays a claim even though they claim that there is no coverage, but they then have the right to sue the policyholder for their decision in paying a claim that was not covered;
  6. Other coverages such as uninsured/underinsured motorist coverages and Personal Injury Protection (P.I.P.) coverages can be in jeopardy if the driver was not insured under the policy; and
  7. The likelihood that a person who insured with Fred Loya or Old American will be sued is substantially increased anytime an issue arises that results in a delay in the payment of a valid claim as typically these issues have to get sorted out through the litigation process.

In addition, Mr. Meza's comments that Fred Loya Insurance Company serves a unique customer base, typically lower-income drivers who have trouble obtaining insurance is disconcerting as the quality of claims coverage should not vary depending upon the socio-economic status of the customer as there is no difference in the duty of good faith and fair dealing or the duties an insurance company owes to an insured or to a beneficiary under the Texas Insurance Code depending upon the income status of the person. This issue is also particularly troubling considering the fairly recent marketing push by Fred Loya to increase its position in the insurance market in Texas. Questions arise about whether the company is targeting a particular segment of the public. Either way, there is apparently a need to be mindful of the old saying, "You get what you pay for."

Other than a general buyer beware message to the public this investigation might serve, the question is where does this investigation leave the general public and why is it important. The reality is that insurance companies in Texas have a lot of power. Ben Gonzalez, an Insurance Department spokesman, said the agency is limited in how it can respond to consumer complaints. For example, the department cannot force a company to pay a disputed claim if there is no violation of the law. Also, the agency cannot decide who is at fault in an accident. We cannot resolve every case, he said. "Complaints do help us identify issues of concern with a particular company." In addition, the Texas Department of Insurance has indicated that Old American has also been cited for canceling hundreds of auto policies after claims were filed on each. While the insurance company may claim that the cancellations were justified, you still have to be concerned as a consumer that an insurance company has a reputation that it is there to collect premiums, but not to pay claims in a timely or fair manner.

While your experience with these insurance companies may have been positive, this investigation points out that as a consumer, you should take more into account when purchasing insurance than just the amount of the premiums.

Montes Herald Law Group, LLP

Attorneys Rachel Montes and Tom Herald

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

Telephone: (214) 522-9401

www.MontesHerald.com

www.MontesHeraldBlog.com

Facebook at Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

Doctor Convicted of 3 Counts of Manslaugher

Jayant Patel (60), an American doctor practicing in Sydney Australia has been convicted of 3 counts of manslaughter and one charge of grievous bodily harm in connection with his treatment of four patients. Patel is accused of botching a several operations while he was the chief surgeon at an Australian hospital. The jury found him guilty on all charges. He faces a maximum penalty of life in prison.

While this trial took place in Australia, it shares many common themes with medical malpractice trials in the United States. For example, Dr. Patel denied any wrongdoing, claimed he was innocent on all charges. In addition, Dr. Patel raised the two most common defenses that arise in medical malpractice claims (1) bad result and (2) consent. In medical malpractice, medical providers often assert a defense of "bad result" to claim that just because the procedure has a bad result, the bad result is not evidence of negligence or wrong-doing. Likewise, medical providers often claim that the patient consented to the treatment knowing that it had risks. However, the consent defense does not excuse the doctor from negligently performing the procedures.

In contrast, the prosecutor described Patel as a "bad surgeon motivated by ego" who tried to restore his reputation by carrying out surgery he was not competent to perform. The prosecutor pointed to evidence introduced at trial that Patel had been banned by U.S. authorities from carrying out some of the procedures he undertook when he later moved to Australia, and that he did not inform his new employers about the restrictions. Patel has a long history of questionable practices. The trial came more than 25 years after questions were first raised about Patel's competency and marks a milestone for many former patients who have waited years to face the man they accuse of irreparably damaging their lives.

Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

(214) 522-9401

www.MontesHerald.com

www.MontesHeraldBlog.com

Rachel Montes Participates in Law Day

As part of an educational program to encourage high school students to get involved in our community, and to help educate them on the historical foundation of our country and our legal system, the Dallas Bar Association sponsored Law Day.   As part of that program, students from around the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex partiipate in a mock trial competition, and are given mentors and assistance from some of Dallas' proven trial lawyers.   Among those participating in the program was Rachel Montes who explained the "Voir Dire" process, and then gave the students a demonstration of an actual voir dire.

Members of the Dallas Bar then volunteer their time to coach local teams as well as to judge the competitions which culminate in a state wide competition. 

18 WHEELER BURNS FRISCO FATHER AND KILLS HIS FAMILY

Wendell Greene of Frisco, Texas is recovering from his personal injuries, including third-degree burns over 50 percent of his body when he was struck by an 18 wheeler on Interstate 20 in Kaufman County over the Memorial Day Holiday. Wendell Greene, his wife, Lakeysha Greene and their daughter, Wesleigh Greene; and son, Kyle Greene (3); were on their way to Louisiana to celebrate Kyle Greene's birthday with family when a tractor-trailer rear-ended the family's sport utility vehicle on Interstate 20 in Kaufman County. Mr. Greene's family were killed at the scene of the crash. Mr. Greene is expected to spend at least two months in the hospital recovering from his burns and trying to deal with the loss of his wife and children. Wendell Greene is hospitalized and is in and out of consciousness. He will not be able to attend any services for his family which are being planned to be held at the Friendship Baptist Church of The Colony, where the Greenes were members. Grief counselors were also assigned to Wesleigh's kindergarten classmates at Gunstream Elementary School in Frisco.

Friends say Green was smitten with his wife since first meeting her as a graduate student at the University of Arkansas. One of Lakeysha Greene's longtime friends and sorority sisters, Robin Guinn, remembered her as a person of deep faith, often regarding death as simply another milestone of life, not unlike birthdays, weddings or anniversaries. She always said, 'God is in control. What can you do about it?" Guinn said.

Police have not released details on the specific cause of the collision. Following any collision with an 18 wheeler, the 18 wheeler driver is required to immediately have a blood test to check for drugs and alcohol. In many cases, even when the driver is not driving under the influence often times the driver is fatigued or has been driving for too many hours. As a result, police will also routinely inspect the driver's log books and the 18 wheeler to determine if the driver and the vehicle were in compliance with all DOT requirements.

People often ask should I contact an attorney contact attorney. People often believe that the facts are so compelling that the insurance company will treat them fairly and will pay the claim quickly because it is so clear that the company owes the claim. There are many reasons to hire an attorney even in cases like this where it appears that the insurance company is likely to try to settle the case.

1. Very few non-lawyers are familiar with what a fair settlement is for this type of case. As a result, the insurance company may offer what appears to be a substantial settlement offer, when in reality, the case has a much larger value.

2. We also believe that in cases such as this, there is often much more than just money at stake. It is about justice. There is the need to try to change the way companies do business to try to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future. In our practice, we try to obtain not just monetary settlements for our clients, but we also try to get companies to change the way they do business. Seeing that these companies change the way they do business can often help our clients recover in ways that a financial settlement does not accomplish. This change is hard to accomplish without an attorney.

3. Even in serious cases such as this, the investigation the police conduct tends to be much more limited in scope than the investigation that a competent and thorough attorney will do. The reason for this easy to understand when you understand the distinction between the criminal justice system and the civil justice system. The police conduct an investigation to determine if there is a crime that needs to be prosecuted not to help you pursue a civil case. The police focus on looking for evidence of specific crimes. In contrast, in a civil case, the law takes everything into consideration, and so the investigation into the causes of the wreck are much more broad in scope than the police may consider.

A. A classic example of this difference between a criminal case and a civil case involves the use of cell phones by 18 wheeler drivers. Read our blog for more information on this new law. We all know that talking on a cell phone or texting while driving is incredibly distracting to any driver and is an extremely dangerous practice. However, until this year, it was not illegal for truck drivers to drive while texting. As a result, even though it might have cause the driver to be distracted, the police did not usually investigate those issues. However, attorneys would search for evidence and find that the driver was busy talking on a cell phone rather than paying attention to his driving.

B. Because the police can only take certain action or because they have a limited budget to investigate these cases, the police may decide not seize control over the 18 wheeler or they may release the vehicle back to the driver or 18 wheeler company without securing and recording all of the available evidence that may have led to or contributed to the cause of the wreck. In a civil case, attorneys will often take action to either have an expert inspect the truck or to take action to require that evidence be preserved. As a result, lawyers will often subpoena cell phone records and company radio and other electronic transmissions and even computer data that monitors the speed, braking and other systems of the 18 wheeler so that the as much information as possible can be obtained about the cause of the wreck. When this action is not taken, an 18 wheeler company may destroy evidence or lose evidence that would have been critical to show that the company or driver is responsible for causing the wreck.

4. Even the 18 wheeler companies know how important it is to hire an attorney. When accidents like this occur, you can bet that the 18 wheeler company will immediately contact their attorneys and insurance company to protect their interests. The insurance company and the attorneys are trained in ways that are designed to protect the 18 wheeler company and the 18 wheeler driver, not the rights of the victims. They will take action to minimize the claim or possibly even prevent their clients from being held responsible. They will try to secure recorded statements that benefit the 18 wheeler company. If you or your family members are involved in this type of wreck, you need a legal team that will immediately take action to protect your rights.

5. Often times, we see instances where people believe because the insurance company appears to be acting friendly and maybe even paying for some expenses, people think that they will not need to hire an attorney. Eventually, enough time passes, and the victims' family does not even realize that the company has taken advantage of the situation to destroy critical evidence.

6. Any time you or a loved one is involved in a serious collision whether it is with an 18 wheeler or some other type of serious accident, you should immediately contact an attorney to at least learn what your rights are. Usually, time is of the essence. After all, when it comes to preserving and locating evidence, the longer you wait to take action, the more likely the evidence will be lost or destroyed.

In the meantime, we hope you will join us and his circle of friends and family that are keeping Mr. Greene and his family in their prayers. God bless this family and help to see themthrough this.

Rachel Montes and Tom Herald are the lawyers behind Montes Herald Law Group, LLP. We have offices in Dallas, Irving, and in El Paso. Our principal place of business is in Irving, Texas located at 1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100, Irving, Texas 75063. You can contact us by telephone at (214) 522-9401 via our website at www.MontesHerald.com. Visit our blog at www.MontesHeraldBlog.com and become a fan on Facebook at Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

SEVERAL DEATHS ON AREA LAKES OVER MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY SHOW THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER SAFETY

Each year, the Memorial Day Weekend marks that beginning of summer and a substantial increase in lake activities in the area. Sadly, this year, like many previous years, the holiday has been marked with several deaths on local lakes.

Sunday night, two personal watercraft collided on Eagle Mountain Lake and killed two people. The crash occurred about 8:30 p.m. on the southwest portion of the lake near Azle. Two men on a personal watercraft collided with another personal watercraft operated by a man who had a female passenger. The man and woman on the same watercraft were killed. The man was identified as Richard Minnaar, 22, of Keller, according to the Tarrant County medical examiner's office. The woman's identity had not been released Monday afternoon. "The investigation into the cause is still pending," Lorance said.

Anyone who has ridden a personal watercraft knows how much fun these machines can be to operate, but they still require a level of skill and control that some people fail to appreciate. Because these machines have the ability to rapidly accelerate, and despite the fact that they look like a motorcycle, they do not brake or steer like a motorcycle. Therefore, stopping quickly or trying to make an emergency maneuver on a personal watercraft or jet ski can be very difficult for inexperienced riders. As a result, many lakes control not only the areas where personal watercraft can be operated, how those personal watercraft can be operated, and how much distance operators are required to keep between themselves and other watercraft, swimmers and the shore.

Although the reports on this incident have not given any indication if alcohol is suspected to have played a part in this collision, it is not uncommon for boating accidents to be an alcohol-related event as many people see going to the lake as an excuse to drink. However, Texas law makes boating while intoxicated just as illegal as driving while intoxicated, and being at the lake does not shield someone from being charged with public intoxication. Read our blog on Boating While Intoxicated for a brief review of some of the laws affecting alcohol consumption.

Sadly, there were two other deaths on area lakes these weekend.

Ricky Frazier (22) of Irving is believed to have drowned in Lake Grapevine after jumping into the lake from a boat 100 yards off show and never re-surfacing. Investigators do not know what caused Frazier to disappear but said alcohol does not appear to be a factor. Divers were also checking conditions at the site where he jumped in.

Balint Gash (24) of The Colony also died Sunday at Lake Lewisville after jumped off a boat and never surfaced. Game Warden Neal Bieler, captain for the Fort Worth district, stressed how important it is for all people at the lake to wear a life jacket whether people think they need them or not." And for children, the law requires children 13 and under to wear a life jacket on any watercraft at all times, and each water craft must have at least one life jacket for each person on board. Likewise, any person riding a personal watercraft without a life jacket can be charged with a Class C misdemeanor.

Rachel Montes and Tom Herald are the attorneys at Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P. We are located in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex at 1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100, Irving, Texas 75063. Telephone (214) 522-9401. Visit our website at www.MontesHerald.com, our blog at www.MontesHeraldBlog.com and our Facebook at Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P. to learn more about current events and issues that may affect you.

SUPREME COURT SAYS SPEAK UP TO INVOKE YOUR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins that criminal suspects must explicitly and unambiguously tell police they want to invoke their right to remain silent. We have all heard the Miranda warning on police shows and movies. It is the first warning that is given to a suspect once the suspect is placed in custody.

In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and and questioning in connection with charges of rape and kidnapping. Interestingly, Miranda was subsequently retried, found guilty and sentenced to 20-30 years even with the Court having thrown out his statements that were obtained during the questioning by police.

The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, a basic Miranda warning has become standardized so that police know that the suspect has been properly advised of his or her rights. The typical Miranda warning is as follows:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

The right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first part of the Miranda rights warnings, and are considered to be the most fundamental parts of the rights persons have under our Constitution against self-incrimination. But the 9 Supreme Court Justices ruled in this 5-4 split decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent and must tell the police to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder, and remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

During a three hour interrogation of Thompkins, officers acknowledged that Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," "no," "I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote that Thompkins' decision to remain silent through most of the interrogation was not enough to invoke his right to remain silent. "Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down." "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. More interestingly, Justice Sotomayor pointed out that unlike most constitutional rights which are strictly protected absent a clear and affirmative waiver of the right, as a result of this decision, the law will presume that all suspects have chosen to waive his or constitutional rights in the absence of a clear and unambiguous statement of an intent not to waive that right. Justice Sotomayor commented, "...suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Obviously, we hope that no one ever finds themselves in a situation where they are being wrongful accused of committing a crime and being interrogated by the police, and being forced to consider whether or not to invoke the right to remain silent. However, this case has much broader implications than just the constitutional rights of a single American to remain silent when being questioned by police. For example, last month, President Obama indicated that he has asked the Department of Justice to research ways to try to peal back some of the constitutional protections given to individuals (both American citizens and international suspects) during police interrogations to better enable law enforcement agencies to investigate and to prevent terrorism. In particular, the administration is considering ways to avoid the requirement of giving Miranda warnings to terrorism suspects. However, our constitution does not currently currently make distinctions in the constitutional rights of suspects have depending upon the nature of the charges being investigated or pursued.

Rachel Montes and Tom Herald are the attorneys at Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P. We are located in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex at 1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100, Irving, Texas 75063. Telephone (214) 522-9401. Visit our website at www.MontesHerald.com, our blog at www.MontesHeraldBlog.com and our Facebook at Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P. to learn more about current events and issues that may affect you.

LAWSUIT CLAIMS PAMPERS DIAPERS ARE CAUSING CHEMICAL BURNS ON BABIES

Procter & Gamble Co is being sued by parents claiming that Pampers newly designed diapers have caused severe rashes and other skin conditions on their children. Proctor & Gamble has responded to the claims saying that they are "completely false."

The lawsuit, Clark et al v. The Procter & Gamble Company, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May 11, 2010 and tracks complaints on Facebook that the new Pampers Swaddlers and Cruisers diapers with Proctor & Gamble's new Dry Max technology appear to have caused rashes and burns on their children. In March, Procter & Gamble launched new versions of its Swaddlers and Cruisers diapers in the U.S. These diapers are thinner and use the company's Dry Max technology to replace the paper pulp previously used.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission started an investigation this week following complaints of babies and toddlers suffering severe and persistent diaper rashes and blisters that resemble chemical burns. CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson encouraged parents to report any problems to the agency, which he said has received only a handful of reports so far. Wolfson said the investigation is in its early stages and the agency is seeking as much information as possible. "We would like parents and caregivers to report to CPSC if they feel that their baby has been affected by this issue," he said. "It's so important for it to come directly to us."

 Montes Herald Law Group, LLP

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

Telephone (214) 522-9401

www.MontesHerald.com

www.MontesHeraldBlog.com

Facebook @ Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

JURY HOLDS TEAM DOCTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR $11.5 MILLION TO FORMER MIAMI DOLPHINS RECEIVER WHO WAS CLEARED TO PLAY WHILE INJURED

O.J. McDuffie, a former wide receiver for the Miami Dolphins filed a lawsuit against the team doctor, John Uribe, M.D. who cleared him to play. As a result, McDuffie claimed he had to retire prematurely. The jury agreed and found that McDuffie should be compensated in the amount of $11.5 million for his damages.

This is lawsuit stems from the handling of McDuffie's injury and his status to play with an injured big toe in 1999 that he claims led to an early end of his career. McDuffie sustained the injury in the 10th game of the 1999 season. After being injured, the lawsuit alleged that McDuffie was told by team physician, Dr. Uribe, that McDuffie could continue to play even though MRIs of the toe showed tendon damage. As a result of the advice of the medical professionals, McDuffie played in two of the remaining six regular-season games, and then played in both playoff games that year. McDuffie was also in uniform for nine games in 2000, but none in 2001. In 2002, McDuffie was released from the team during the offseason with three years left on his contract following a longer-than-average nine-year NFL career.

McDuffie, who was the Dolphins' first-round pick from Penn State in the 1993 NFL Draft, However, once he injured his toe, McDuffie basically lost his effectiveness as a receiver and was eventually cut from the team and forced to retire early.

  • In 1998, the year before the injury, McDuffie led the NFL with 90 receptions for 1,050 yards and with seven touchdowns in 1998.
  • In 1999, McDuffie had only 43 receptions for 516 yards and two touchdowns.
  • In 2000, McDuffie's numbers fell almost completely off of the map as he only recorded 14 receptions for 143 yards and no touchdowns. 
  • McDuffie finished his career with 415 receptions for 5,074 yards and 29 career touchdowns.

The jury awarded $10 million of lost earnings and $1.5 million of anguish,'' said Stuart Ratzan, who handled the case along with Herman Russomanno. "They (the jury) were moved by the shattered dreams and career of Mr. McDuffie."

In a profession where injuries and playing injured are expected, this verdict is remarkable and may have a far reaching consequences. Professional sports are more than just a game. Professional sports are big business, not only to the owners, but also to the players and even to the team doctors that provide services to these teams. While there is no doubt that most of these team doctors provide excellent quality medical care and advice to the players, these doctors tend to use this affiliation as a marketing tool to bolster their reputations and practices. However, in the end it is the medical advice and treatment that matters to the player as his livelihood depends on his health and his ability to play. In some cases, the player's entire career and future contracts may be at risk if he is not cleared to play. In other cases, a career can be cut short, if an injured player is cleared to play. A classic example of this dilemma is when the head coach of the Dallas Mavericks benched his star player Dirk Nowitzki during the playoffs because of concerns that Dirk's injury could be so severe that playing injured might jeopardize his career.

The players and the teams depend heavily on their team physicians to give the right medical advice about whether or not a player should be permitted to play despite an injury, and to consider whether or not playing with an injury or a weakened body part could jeopardize a player's career and the team's financial investments in that player. While there are many cases where the decision is easy, there are bound to be a number of decisions each year where the decision is not so clear.

There is little doubt that the NFL's closer look at the effect of concussions will be affected by this verdict as doctors, teams and players are more concerned than ever before about the long term and cumulative effects of concussions and other injuries. It will be interesting to see how teams, players, the players' union and team physicians react to this verdict and to see what type of disclaimers players and possibly even teams will now be forced to sign before a team physician clears a player to play with an injury.

Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

Attorneys: Rachel Montes and Tom Herald

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

STARBUCKS SUED FOR CAUSING SECOND DEGREE BURNS

A customer has sued Starbucks Corp who claims she suffered second-degree burns after being served tea that was too hot. According to the complaint, the plaintiff Zeynep Inanli was served tea that was "unreasonably hot, in containers which were not safe," at a Starbucks store in Manhattan. The case is Inanli v. Starbucks Corp et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 105767-2010.

The lawsuit alleges that as a result of Starbucks' negligence, Inanli suffered "great physical pain and mental anguish," including the burns. Retailers who serve hot coffee and tea know that when their products are served at certain temperatures, the liquid can cause severe burns to their customers. In fact, there are numerous industry studies that specifically warn businesses that serve coffee and other hot liquids to regularly check the temperature of the coffee to make sure that the temperature is safe for human consumption. These studies point out that there is an important distinction between "hot" coffee and "dangerous" coffee. These companies know or should know that coffee and tea should never be served to customers at or above certain temperatures. These studies also warn businesses that water for coffee or tea should never be warmed up in a microwave oven as the microwaves can superheat the water far beyond the point at which the water is dangerous to touch.

While many people remember the now famous McDonald's hot coffee case because of the amount of damages the jury awarded, and it is often used as a soundbite or a punchline for people who want to claim lawsuit abuse, you do not hear these people tell the entire story of that case.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico was the customer who was severely burned in that case. Ms. Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments. Ask any burn patient how painful this treatment and these types of burns are, and you will know that Ms. Liebeck suffered a great amount of physical pain and suffering and mental anguish.

McDonald's had documented over 700 complaints from customers who had been burned by McDonald's coffee, including many who sustained third degree burns. Based on the advice of consultants McDonald's held its coffee at temperatures ranging between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit, but the consultants had never evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Meanwhile evidence showed that other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

The temperature at which coffee is served is critical because at certain temperatures, any contact with the hot coffee to the skin will cause a burn. Plus, the hotter the coffee is and the longer it stays on the skin, the more severe the risk for a burn injury. At trial, expert witnesses testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in as little as two seconds. In contrast, other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

While it may be understandable that many people who have not seen the pictures of Ms. Liebeck's injuries or who have not heard the whole story, may have an initial, negative reaction to this type of case, it is not uncommon to see that the customer, like Ms. Liebeck can suffer a massive amount of burns, endure tremendous pain and suffering just like anyone who sustains third degree burns, be forced to under painful medical procedures, and incurthousands of dollars in medical bills because of hot coffee or tea that is served at dangerously hot temperatures.

Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

Attorneys: Rachel Montes and Tom Herald

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

Telephone (214) 522-9401

www.MontesHerald.com

www.MontesHeraldBlog.com

Facebook @ Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

ARLINGTON WOMAN CHARGED WITH FELONY AFTER PIT BULL ATTACK

Nancy Hayes, (30), of Arlington, Texas, is the owner of two pit bulls, one of which was previously declared as "dangerous" was charged with a crime for her dogs' recent attack on a neighbor. The victim, Robert Wallis, (66) said Hayes' two pit bulls flew out an unlocked gate as he walked outside to his mailbox. Mr. Wallis reported that, "(There was) no warning, and every time I got halfway back up, I was pulled back down again." The dog bit Mr. Wallis on his hand, arm, ankle and face. "All I could think of was (to) get up and keep them off of me," Mr. Wallis was rescued by a postal service employee. Wallis says his neighbor hasn't apologized for the attack or said anything to him since it happened April 22. As is typical for these types of incidents, the city euthanized both of the animals after this attack.

One of the same dogs had been declared dangerous last summer after it attacked another man. Following that incident, Hayes had promised to keep the animal restrained. Like most cities, Arlington has a number of local ordinances that are fairly strict about the requirements to keep dogs fenced in and on a leash.

Arlington's City Ordinances state:

Section 4.11 Animal At Large

     A.   A person commits an offense if he fails to keep an animal he owns from being at large.

Section 8.05 Requirements for Owners of Dangerous Animals

     A.   ... the owner of a dangerous animal, the owner shall:

          1. Register the dangerous animal with the Animal Services Manager and maintain current registration at all times;

          2. Restrain the animal in a secure enclosure inspected and approved by the Animal Services Manager;

         4. Microchip and register the dangerous animal for its life with a national registry, and present proof to the Animal Services Manager.....

Section 8.06 Registration

     A. The Animal Services Manager shall annually register a dangerous animal if the owner is in compliance with the owner's requirements of Section 8.05. ....

Section 8.10 Muzzle and Restraint of Dangerous Animals

An owner of a dangerous animal shall not permit a dangerous animal to be outside the secure enclosure unless the animal is muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash, no longer than six (6) feet in length, and a capable person is in immediate physical control of the leash. Such animal shall not be leashed to any inanimate object such as a tree, post, building, or other object. The muzzle shall be made in a manner that will not cause injury to the animal or interfere with its vision or respiration but shall prevent it from biting any person or animal.

 

Section 8.08 Offenses

     A. A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dangerous animal and the animal makes an unprovoked attack on another person outside the animal's enclosure, and the attack causes bodily injury to the other person.

     B. A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dangerous dog and the dog makes an unprovoked attack on a domestic animal or domestic fowl while said dog is at large, and the attack causes bodily injury or death to the domestic animal or domestic fowl.

     C. A person commits an offense if the person is the owner of a dangerous animal or the new owner of a dangerous animal and performs an act prohibited or fails to perform an act required by this Article.

In this case, the criminal charges, however, are not based upon the city ordinances, but rather violations of Texas law. Specifically, police are charging Nancy Hayes with a third degree felony of "attack by dog resulting in serious injury." The charge is punishable by up two to 10 years in prison. In 2007, the Texas legislature enacted "Lillian's Law," after Lillian Stiles, a central Texas woman who was mauled by several dogs in 2005 to hold dog owners accountable for these attacks.

While there is no doubt that even pit bulls and rotweillers can be very good and loving pets, dog owners have a responsibility to make sure that they do not let their dogs roam free and attack other people. This is particularly true when the dog has previously been declared a dangerous dog because of its vicious propensities. In Arlington, if the dog is declared "dangerous" then the dog owner must carry homeowner's insurance in the amount of at least $100,000 to cover the damages the dog may cause if another attack occurs. However, even if the dog has not been declared dangerous, most homeowner's policies will cover the damages these dogs cause when an attack occurs that is shown to be caused in part by the negligence of the dog's owner.

Montes Herald Law Group, LLP

Attorneys: Rachel Montes and Tom Herald

1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100

Irving, Texas 75063

Telephone (214) 522-9401

www.MontesHerald.com

www.MontesHeraldBlog.com

Facebook @ Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.

Montes Herald Law Group, L.L.P.
1121 Kinwest Parkway, Suite 100
Irving, TX 75063
Phone: 214-522-9401
Toll free: 877-529-8899
Map & Directions

The experienced personal injury attorneys of the Montes Herald Law Group, LLP, based in Irving, TX, represent clients throughout north Texas and statewide, with focus on the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Metroplex and Dallas County, Tarrant County, Denton County, Harris County, Travis County and Baylor County. This includes cities such as Irving, Las Colinas, Valley Ranch, Dallas, Fort Worth, Plano, Arlington, Carrollton, Coppell, Lewisville, Grapevine, Addison, Southlake, Colleyville and the Hurst, Euless, Bedford Heb-mid cities area.

FirmSite® by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.