Las Vegas Injury & Accident Attorney Blog

An OOJ or Offer of Judgment is a tool for parties in litigation used to shift risk to an opposing side.   The procedural rule allows judgment to be taken against that party in a specified amount.  The offer of judgment is a formal way to make an offer to settle the case; hence, a party may believe the value of the case is worth more (from the plaintiff’s side), or a party may believe the case is worth less (from the defendant’s side) and make an offer accordingly.  The risk of such an offer is that is may be accepted at a lower threshold than a jury might award.   NRCP (Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure) and the FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) both govern this strategic move.

An OOJ can be made at anytime after the commencement of the litigation–hence after an answer is made.   Certainly, to be fair to both sides, and surely to meet certain legal factors, an excellent time to do an offer of judgment is a time when both sides are truly familiar with the facts of the case and can make a reasonable judgment as to whether the case is worth settling or rolling the dice at trial.  Recently, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that service by fax of an Offer of Judgment is only valid if, of course, the party to which service is made upon has consented to such service( by fax).  Given technical difficulties of fax machines, internet service, and the like, our firm does not allow service or notice by fax.  Serving an OOJ by fax is not a good way to notice this serious weapon, and should be served in person by what us lawyers call: a signed ROC,  ”Receipt of Copy.”  This way, the OOJ is properly served with no argument as to notice.

What exactly happens when a party to a car accident receives an offer to settle involving NRCP 68 or NRS 17.115?   Well, a party may have to pay COSTS of litigation AND ATTORNEY FEES in the event of losing.  This is a powerful tool to get a case resolved when the stakes are high. Litigation is not a cheap activity, and a failure of a party to not accept a reasonable offer can have dire consequences.   In fact, a party can actually be successful at trial (e.g win the case), but lose financially. Exactly how?  Real simple.  Here is an example:  A party wrongly believes their accident case is worth $50,000 so they make an OOJ of slightly lower:  $45,000.  The Defendant disagrees with the “outrageous” offer.  The clients medical expenses are $10,000 and the client has totally healed.  10 days goes by and the offer of judgment is automatically rescinded due to non-acceptance.  They proceed to a jury trial.  Now, the jury awards $30,000.  $15,000 less than if they had accepted the offer.  Big Problem.   The judge in the matter can then award the Defendant attorney fees and costs!

Those costs might well exceed $100,000.  So, this example illustrates that a party who had a good case and won, will lose $70,000!  Not a good result.  The secret weapon is there!  An opposing example:  A party offers to settle for $1 million dollars on a wrongful death claim, and the opposing side refuses the offer thinking they can beat it at trial.  The personal injury attorney smartly decides the case can be proven and the damages will likely be awarded much higher.  The case proceeds to trial and a Nevada jury awards $2 million dollars.  The Plaintiff here will make more than just the award of $1M, but also attorney fees (billed by the hour since the OOJ was made), and gets the total costs of bringing the case to trial.  This is a win, win.   If no Offer of Judgment was ever made the case for an award of fees and costs is discretionary and is optional–which in all likelihood means no award of fees and costs.  If you have a case and would like the experience and expertise of Las Vegas Personal injury lawyers Joseph Benson and Ben Bingham, call us today. 702-382-9797

Benson & Bingham  ”Here to help you litigate your case.”

Recently, A Nevada Jury awarded $500 Million in punitive damages to a couple infected with Hepatitis from an Endoscopy center.  It is well known the facility and its doctors, primarily Dr. Desai, reused Propofol vials (an anesthestic) on patients mixing the syringes and needles between patients cross contaminating.  It is well known the Doctors did not have the money to compensate the victims who have genetically linked their disease to the outbreak at the facility.   The jury awarded $5.1 Million in compensatory and then awarded the 1/2 billion dollar sum to punish the maker of the drug.  The convincing argument was the 50ml vials should not have been sold to centers that had minimal use for such large doses of medication.

This lawsuit was based on the Strict Products Liability Cause of Action that is a very strong action, if the Plaintiff’s can prove the product failed in its warnings, was defectively designed, or was mis-manufactured in some fashion.  The key here was the defectively designed containers that “encouraged” multi uses for business/profit reasons–allegedly.  The vials do have qualified uses in drip systems and other longer sleep patient procedures.  So, in essence, the company was punished by the jury (in this case Teva and Baxter Pharmaceuticals) for this “encouragement” in that they knew doctors may be reusing the vials and they helped in some fashion by making such a “large” dosage.  Whether or not personal injury lawyers are correct in their allegations, the jury believed the arguments and found not only that these companies were liable, but that they should be punished for their bad behavior.  Given that the combined annual revenue of these companies exceeds $13 billion, even the $500,000,000 is a slap on the wrist–but it would get any accountant’s attention.   So, one must contemplate whether the underlying case was justified.    To understand how a jury gets to this, one must understand that Negligence is not a bar to strict products liability.

The law is founded on the assumption that manufacturers need to make safe products–very safe products, or face severe ramifications for bad design, bad warnings, or bad product.  If a product is misused this is a defense to products liability.  And, arguably the doctors misused the “single” dose vials.  The jury did not believe this argument because they were not allowed to hear it!    The jury was barred from hearing testimony that doctors misused the vials given that this “negligence” was not a factor in the products liability action.  While this author did not sit through the trial and hear all the relevant testimony, the point is clear that the case was tried as a products case, and the jury found that the manufacturer was liable for creating an unreasonably dangerous product.     The absurd response comes from those who compare this scenario to that of a car driver who car drives 100 mph but yet the roads only allow for 55mph.  Should we sue the car manufacturer for the drivers error when he crashes doing 100mph?  Another comparison is one to cough syrup.  It comes in 10 oz bottles.  The consumer is “warned” to only take 2 tablespoons (one ounce).  If a consumer drinks the whole bottle, should we then sue Robitussan or Vick’s Cough syrup because the consumer did not follow the instructions?  Well, the crazier thing here, is not only was warning not obeyed, it was a doctor who did not obey it…

Personal injury attorneys typically handle cases for victims of car accidents and other tragedies who often are uninsured.  These victims treat with doctors and medical facilities on a lien basis to avoid out-of-pocket expenses.  A lien is nothing more than a promise to pay when the settlement or verdict is reached.    The quagmire is whether patients should use their health insurance or treat on a lien basis when involved in a 3^rd party personal injury action.   Health insurance, under Federal Law, must be reimbursed if funds are collected from a 3^rd party (except in rare cases).  But, there is a huge benefit for those insured victims to use health insurance because they can save tons of money in the long run given they have the protection of contracted health care rates. Lien providers can charge whatever they wish in a car accident case—as long as it is reasonable. What is reasonable is often gauged by market prices—and to some degree Medicare Rates (even though most would argue Medicare is on the cheap end of a reasonable charge.)

The new reasonable charge may be drastically lower given that all will have healthcare.  Given that everyone will now required to be insured, this will eliminate, in essence the need for liens as all persons will now have the remedy of insurance to treat for car accident cases.   Medical providers will likely now be forced to be providers on insurance or risk not being utilized.   Personal injury attorneys will not have the advantage of “inflated” or “non-contracted” rates when dealing with automobile insurance carriers (except in rare cases).  But, there is a huge benefit for those insured victims in Nevada to use health insurance because they can save tons of money in the long run given the have the protection of contracted health care rates.  Lien providers can charge whatever they wish in a car accident case—as long as it is reasonable.  What is reasonable is often gauged by market prices—and to some degree Medicare Rates (even though most would argue Medicare is on the cheap end of a reasonable charge.)  The new reasonable charge may be drastically lower given that all will have healthcare.  Given that everyone will now required to be insured, this will eliminate, in essence the need for liens as all persons will now have the remedy of insurance to treat for car accident cases.

Medical providers in Nevada will likely now be forced to be providers on insurance or risk not being utilized.   Personal injury lawyers will not have the advantage of “inflated” or “non-contracted” rates when dealing with automobile insurance carriers  (Geico, State Farm, Farmers, Allstate, American Family, Progressive, USAA, etc.), thus many should expect that lower medical costs will decrease personal injury settlements in minor car accident cases where value is often determined by the extent of the medical expenses and underlying treatment (verses the injury value in a large damages case where the human damages may have a residual affect).

Nevada’s strict rule requiring an affidavit for medical mal-practice complaints is now even stricter.  The NV Supreme court declared that expert affidavits for the mal-practice of doctors now also applies to those corporations (e.g Hospitals and their nurses) for their respective negligent conduct.   The rule simply adds harshness to the already cut-throat rule that an affidavit must be supplied to any complaint or it is automatically dismissed.  Thus, if your assistant fails to apply a staple–the case is over.  Very ridiculous, but this is medical tort reform just as the doctors wanted it.  Way to go Nevada legislature!

Fierle v. Perez, 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 36 (Nov 19, 2009)1 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AND NRS 41A.071’S

EXPERT AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENT

Summary

An appeal from the First Judicial District Court’s dismissal of medical malpractice and professional negligence claims against a physician, his professional medical corporation and several staff members for failure to attach an expert affidavit to their initial complaint.

Disposition/Outcome

District court’s judgment affirmed with regards to claims that required an affidavit, reversed and remanded with regards to claim that qualified under res ipsa loquitor exceptions.

Facts and Procedural History

Patricia Fierle (“Fierle”) was diagnosed in July 2005 with breast cancer and subsequently underwent a mastectomy. To facilitate ongoing chemotherapy, a catheter was inserted into her chest, the tip of which was meant to terminate in her subclavian vein. Chemotherapy drugs were to be injected into the vein through this catheter.

After the surgery, Fierle became a patient of Dr. Perez and his staff, including Melissa Mitchell (“Mitchell”), a registered nurse, and nurse practitioners Charmaine Cruet and Linda Lesperance. On Fierle’s third visit to Dr. Perez’ office, Mitchell administered chemotherapy. However, rather than in fusing in to the catheter, the medication infused into her tissue. This caused a subcutaneous burn known as an “extravasation.” According to Fierle, her complaints of discomfort at the time were not met with any treatment or attention.

The next day, after one of Dr. Perez’ nurses noticed redness and swelling on Fierle’s chest, she was referred to a radiologist. His tests revealed that the tip of the catheter was not in the vein, but coiled in her tissue. She then sought treatment from another doctor who referred her to Dr. Miercort. His opinion was that “negligent extravasation” had occurred and he referred her to U.C. Davis Medical Center. There, she was diagnosed with “severe extravasation of chemotherapy over the right shoulder and subclavian region.”

Mr. and Mrs. Fierle filed a complaint in district court on September 14, 2006. They claimed Mitchell was negligent in her administration of chemotherapy, Dr. Perez, Cruet and Lesperance were negligent in their training of Mitchell, loss of consortium and “Willful Failure to Provide Treatment and Constructive Fraud” against Dr. Perez and his professional medical corporation Jorge Perez M.D., Ltd. They later amended their complaint to include an affidavit from Dr. Miercort.

Dr. Perez, Jorge Perez M.D., Ltd., and Mitchell moved for dismissal of the Fierles’ complaint, citing failure to include an expert affidavit with the original complaint as required by

1 By Mark HesiakNRS 41A.071.2 They also moved to strike the amended complaint, relying on Nevada precedent that said a complaint filed under NRS 41A.071 without the expert affidavit is void ab initio and shall be dismissed.3 These motions were joined by Cruet and Lesperance. The district court granted both motions, finding that the complaints did not qualify for NRS 41A.100(1)(c)’s res ipsa loquitor exception. The Fierles’ motions under NRCP 52(b), 59(e) and 60(b) were also later denied. This appeal followed.

Discussion

Standard of Review

The district court’s dismissal was based on its interpretation of statutes. The Nevada Supreme Court reviews a district court’s statutory interpretation de novo.4

NRS 41A.071 applies to professional medical corporations

Under NRS 41A.071, an action for medical or dental malpractice must be accompanied by an affidavit from a medical expert who practices a type of medicine similar to that which forms the basis of the malpractice claim.5 NRS 41A.009 contains the following definition for medical malpractice: “the failure of a physician, hospital or employee of a hospital, in rendering services, to use reasonable care, skill or knowledge ordinarily used under similar circumstances.”6 The appellants argued that no affidavit is required under these statutes in a suit against a professional medical corporation.

While the definition of medical malpractice does not explicitly include professional medical corporations, the Court held that NRS 41A.071 requires expert affidavits be attached to any non res ipsa loquitor malpractice claim against such a corporation. “Professional Corporation” is defined in NRS Chapter 89, and under NRS 89.060 and 89.220, no statute can alter the personal liability of a physician in a medical malpractice claim.7 Harmonizing Chapters 41A and 89, the Court determined that the affidavit requirement applies to claims against professional medical corporations as well as physicians.

NRS 41A.071 applies to professional negligence claims

The Fierles’ also argued that the definition of medical malpractice only covers claims against Dr. Perez’. Therefore, the claims against the other respondents would be for professional negligence and would not require an affidavit as 41A.071 only addresses malpractice claims. The Court looked to resolve the ambiguity by looking to the intent of the initiatives passed in 2004 as NRS 41A.015 and 41A.017, which provided protections for professional negligence for providers of health care.

2 NEV. REV. STAT § 41A.017 (2007). 3 Washoe Med. Ctr. v. Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 1298, 1300, 148 P.3d 790, 792 (2006). 4 Beazer Homes Nevada, Inc. v. Dist. Court, 120 Nev.575, 579, 97 P.3d 1132, 1135 (2004); Keife v. Logan, 119 Nev. 372, 374, 75 P.3d 357, 359 (2003). 5 NEV. REV. STAT § 41A.017 (2007). 6 Id. § 41A.009 (2007). 7 Id. §§ 89.060, 89.220 (2007).

First, the Court noted that the definition of professional negligence in the statute is basically the same as medical malpractice. The intent of the statute was to give other providers of health care the same protection doctors received from the legislature in 2002.8 The Court also reasoned that a malpractice claim against a doctor is the same as a professional negligence claim. To make one of these claims subject to the affidavit requirement and not the other would defeat the intent of the legislature and the citizens of Nevada. It would provide a way around the requirement by calling a claim professional negligence instead of malpractice. Therefore, NRS 41A.071’s affidavit requirement extends to non-res ipsa loquitor professional negligence claims against providers of health care, whether doctors, nurses or nurse practicioners.

Claims based on res ipsa loquitor are not subject to the affidavit requirement

NRS 41A.100 provides res ipsa loquitor exceptions to the affidavit requirement in malpractice or professional negligence claims.9 The Court found its recent decision in Szydel v. Markman conclusive on the issue at hand.10 In Szydel, the court concluded that that the expert affidavit requirement does not apply when the malpractice action is based solely on the res ipsa loquitor doctrine.11 The Syzdel court further concluded that when a plaintiff files a res ipsa loquitor claim in conjunction with other medical malpractice claims that are not based upon the res ipsa loquitor doctrine, those other claims are still subject to the expert affidavit requirements of NRS 41A.071.12

Here, the negligent extravasation claim would fall under one of the listed exceptions. If a “provider of health care” causes a patient to suffer “an unintended burn caused by heat, radiation or chemicals… in the course of medical care,” or any of the other exceptions listed in the statute, no expert testimony or affidavit is required to establish negligence.13 Therefore, the Court allowed the claim against Mitchell to continue as she administered the medication.

A claim amended to include an affidavit will not relate back to the initial filing even if some of the claims do not require the affidavit

The appellants next argued that because some of their initial complaint did not require an affidavit, the amended filing could relate back and cure the initial deficiency. Here, the court followed precedent and determined that all claims under NRS 41A.071 that do not include an affidavit are void ab initio, and must be dismissed.14 The Court applied this rule even to situations where some claims survive because of lack of an affidavit requirement.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that, because under NRS Chapter 89, the establishment of a professional entity cannot alter the personal liability of a participant, NRS 41A.071’s affidavit

8 See 2004 General Election Sample Ballot, p. 12. 9 NEV. REV. STAT § 41A.100(1)(c) (2007). 10 Szydel v. Markman, 121 Nev. 453, 117 P.3d 200 (2005). 11 Id. at 454, 117 P.3d at 201. 12 Id. at 460, 117 P.3d at 205. 13 NEV. REV. STAT § 41A.100(1)(c) (2007); see also Szydel, 121 Nev. at 454, 117 P.3d at 201. 14 Washoe Med. Ctr., 122 Nev. at 1300, 148 P.3d at 792.

requirement applies to claims against professional medical corporations as well as individuals. The Court further concluded that the requirement extends to professional negligence claims against all providers of health care, nurse practitioners, nurses and doctors alike. However, the Court concluded that any claim that falls under the res ipsa loquitor exceptions listed in NRS 41A.100 may be filed without an affidavit as no expert testimony is needed to establish negligence. Finally, the Court concluded that a complaint filed containing some claims subject to the affidavit requirement and some that do not fall under 41A.071 cannot be cured by filing an amended complaint that includes the affidavits. Thus, all claims subject to NRS 41A.071 that are filed without the affidavits are void ab initio and must be dismissed. In accordance with these conclusions, the Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Concurrence in Part, Dissent in Part (Pickering, J.)

Justice Pickering agreed with the result the majority reached, but not with its reasoning. While medical malpractice is encompassed in the term “professional negligence,” the opposite is not true. As the amendments in 2004 did not change the words “medical malpractice” in 41A.071 to “professional negligence,” the requirement should not be extended to claims of professional negligence. However, in this case, Justice Pickering found the injection to be a part of the rendering of medical services by a physician as defined in the malpractice statute, regardless of the fact that it was a nurse who physically gave the drugs. Therefore, this action would be one for medical malpractice and require an affidavit.

Justice Pickering also believes that both the nurse and the physician with the duty to supervise are subject to the res ipsa loquitor exception. The injection was given by the nurse under the doctor’s supervision, and therefore the remand should be for Dr. Perez and Mitchell for the negligent extravasation.

The Nevada Legislature has capped damages from Punitive damage awards limiting it to three times the amount of general damages per NRS 42.005. $300,000 cap for small verdicts (< $100K) and three times the verdict for those over $100K.  These do not, however, apply to Product’s Liability cases, nor insurance bad faith cases.   These are the most common cases a personal injury lawyer will  deal with, except perhaps the DUI driver Defendant where the conduct is so reckless it may amount to crossing the line of intentional conduct.

Given this, the only cap on product’s liability (e.g. Ford Motor, or Tire cases where there was malice or knowledge of the defect and a jury feels compelled to punish the manufacturer) is the Governing Cap developed by our very own US Supreme Court.  The US Supreme Court in a landmark decision BMW vs. Gore  outlined specific notions of fairness in a platform analysis for State Judges.  The platform looks at the following two prongs:  Reprehensibility & Ratio.  How bad was the conduct?  Did the malicious conduct affect safety? = Reprehensible Conduct and Ratio:  Are the two verdicts Compensatory and Punitive Damage awards have a common ratio so as to not deprive one of due process of law…property.  The guideline was basically a 10:1 ratio that they could not exceed when awarding a punitive damages awards.  Since this decision the Court has further narrowed the guidelines in decisions that we will not address here, but the point is clear that the Nevada Legislature has designed the guidelines for Product manufacturer’s to product safe products and do it with some integrity.   Below is the statute on Punitive damage guidelines for Nevada Cases:

NRS 42.005  Exemplary and punitive damages: In general; limitations on amount of award; determination in subsequent proceeding.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 42.007, in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. Except as otherwise provided in this section or by specific statute, an award of exemplary or punitive damages made pursuant to this section may not exceed:

(a) Three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more; or

(b) Three hundred thousand dollars if the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff is less than $100,000.

2.  The limitations on the amount of an award of exemplary or punitive damages prescribed in subsection 1 do not apply to an action brought against:

(a) A manufacturer, distributor or seller of a defective product;

(b) An insurer who acts in bad faith regarding its obligations to provide insurance coverage;

(c) A person for violating a state or federal law prohibiting discriminatory housing practices, if the law provides for a remedy of exemplary or punitive damages in excess of the limitations prescribed in subsection 1;

(d) A person for damages or an injury caused by the emission, disposal or spilling of a toxic, radioactive or hazardous material or waste; or

(e) A person for defamation.

3.  If punitive damages are claimed pursuant to this section, the trier of fact shall make a finding of whether such damages will be assessed. If such damages are to be assessed, a subsequent proceeding must be conducted before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of such damages to be assessed. The trier of fact shall make a finding of the amount to be assessed according to the provisions of this section. The findings required by this section, if made by a jury, must be made by special verdict along with any other required findings. The jury must not be instructed, or otherwise advised, of the limitations on the amount of an award of punitive damages prescribed in subsection 1.

4.  Evidence of the financial condition of the defendant is not admissible for the purpose of determining the amount of punitive damages to be assessed until the commencement of the subsequent proceeding to determine the amount of exemplary or punitive damages to be assessed.

5.  For the purposes of an action brought against an insurance company.

For Las Vegas personal injury lawyers and their counterparts, mediation has become a very useful tool in the world of ADR or alternate dispute resolution.  Both sides voluntarily sit down and discuss the options of the case with a neutral 3^rd party mediator.  The mediator’s job is to review the case and point out to both sides the opposing arguments to access the risk at trial.  Hopefully, this insight will encourage both to give more (the Defendant to up the money) and the (Plaintiff to lower the money) with hopes of settlement.

Mediation often occurs before a jury trial as a way of final resolution and to avoid not only trial, but also appeals.  Mediations are excellent for personal injury attorneys who may have client control issues; they are also excellent for most cases.  This article is to bring to light the real issue of compromising a claim that occurs in these realms when sometimes that case should be tried in front of a jury.  Major settlements are rarely reached in mediation except perhaps in the appellate mediation arena where a high verdict has already been adjudicated and a negotiating threshold achieved.

Compromization, as this author has termed it, may in fact be a compromise given the right set of facts when everything is considered.  Why should an injured party (if the facts are good), settle without a jury trial?  Often they shouldn’t.  Multi-million dollar verdicts must be earned—the mediated settlement of such a large sum, makes no sense in basic theory.  Why would a Corporate Defendant settle for a large amount without making the other side at least earn it?  Don’t compromise your case, Call Benson & Bingham for a no cost case evaluation.

Settlements are sometimes the best way to go.   Victims in accident cases are often challenged with difficult questions arising from whether to settle a personal injury case, or whether to take the case in front of a jury.  In Nevada, 8 jurors and 1 or 2 alternates will make up the jury panel.  Of those 8 persons, 6 must agree (75%) on the verdict.  The verdict is a culmination of past and future pain and suffering, medical expenses, and wage loss in a personal injury case.   The jury must determine three things:  fault (liability), damages (the amount of appropriate compensation), and legal causation (what percentage or apportionment of the injuries claimed in the case are actually related to accident

Sometimes the Defendant will agree they are liable for the accident, but may dispute the neck injuries relate to the subject car accident; they may argue the cervical neck injuries relate to a previous accident or high school football injury for example.  Given the decisions that must be made by the jury, the decision to settle a case prior to a jury trial eliminates undue risk.

When liability and causation are clear, a damages trial is a great way to go given their is not as much risk.  The case then shifts from a “can we win” strategy to a “how much is it worth?” case.  So, when evaluating whether a case should be settled the risk factors must be considered.  Las Vegas Personal injury attorneys must educate their clients on the risks of taking a case to trial given that losing can not only be devastating to the victim’s emotions, but also their pocketbook as a losing party may incur attorney fees and litigation costs to the non-prevailing party.   The accident attorneys at Benson & Bingham understand that litigation has risks and appropriately advise when and when not to take the case to trial.

Statistics from the insurance industry show that 80% of all motor vehicle claims settle at $5,000 or less, 90% settle for $15,000 or less, and that less than 1% settle for $100,000 or more, yet insurance premiums are rising at the fastest pace ever.

The way insurers evaluate motor vehicle cases. Most major insurers now break claims down into five different claim sections. Most lawyers don’t know what these sections are, or how insurers handle cases differently from one type of case to the next. Out of those claims, bodily injury computer software, which insurers conceal, (such as Colossus) evaluate approximately 70% of all claims in the United States.

In the past, a human adjustor doing traditional claims analysis would have evaluated them. Most lawyers know little or nothing about the software that evaluates most of their client’s cases. Few realize that a different kind of demand letter could get much higher offers. But Benson & Bingham are leading experts on Colossus who will teach you how you can substantially impact claim value by presenting the correct information to the insurer. 

The injuries involved in your cases. What would happen if lawyers who knew what to look for in terms of more serious injuries, considered all of those $5,000 case settlements more carefully? The goal is to help you, by educating you about the most common serious traumatic injuries that most personal injury lawyers miss. These injuries can make what appears to be a $5,000–$10,000 “soft tissue” case worth $100,000 or more. Most lawyers have these cases right now, and don’t even know what they are missing for their clients.  The Law Firm of Benson and Bingham is well versed in understanding the way insurance companies evaluate injury claims.  Call Today.