When Should You Accept an Insurance Settlement?

Here’s a situation that we see many times every year.  You were a passenger in a car that crashed three years ago.  You had knee pain after the accident that never went away and, finally, three months after the accident you went to an orthopedic doctor to find out what was wrong.  He did some tests, took some x-rays and then told you that surgery was necessary to correct the problem — you had a torn meniscus in the knee.

You’re not sure the medical bills will get paid because your employer sponsored health insurance company tells you that bills resulting from a car accident are not their responsibility.  And, you’re now facing surgery and a lengthy recovery period so you seek legal advice.

We tell you that you must file a No-Fault Insurance claim against the owner of the vehicle you were sitting in when the accident happened and that you have the right to bring a lawsuit against the vehicle’s owner and driver, which you decide to do.

The insurance company for the car — Allstate, State Farm, GEICO or any other you can image — stalls the case as long as possible.  But, the case has not reached the top of the judge’s list for trial.  Finally, justice is close at hand.  Of course, when the insurance company is faced with a trial they start to negotiate a settlement.  In the meantime, the economy has changed, you have lost your job, your spouse has agreed to a pay cut to keep their job and the bills keep coming.  Life happens and you really need money. 

The insurance company offers $25,000 to settle your case.  Your attorneys advise you to wait, that the facts of the case indicate a higher settlement should be paid.  A month later the insurance company offers $50,000 and this sounds like a lot of money.  Your attorneys tell you that if you really want to accept this amount it would not be a mistake but that in their opinion, the case is worth more and the insurance company “knows” this.  You’re really desperate for the money because you can’t pay your mortgage and you’re not sure what to do.  When do you say “yes” and when do you say “no.”

One of our clients recently faced this exact dilemma and the advice we gave is what I reported above.  At $50,000, a settlement would not be a mistake, but that we thought we could get more because the facts indicated more was reasonable.  That was based on our experience over many years of handling similar cases.  Our client was understandably anxious to receive any money so she could pay her expenses and stay afloat while looking for a new job.  She called us every day to discuss the issue and the decision she had to make about the settlement.

I am happy to report that while she was hesitating to make a decision we continued to work on her behalf and after several more weeks, we were able to obtain a settlement offer of $75,000, an amount that finally was fair and reasonable and which she gladly accepted.

So when should you accept a settlement?  The answer is, “It all depends.”  It depends on the experience of your lawyers, the open communication you have with your lawyers, and the advice that you can get from your lawyers.

At Reibman & Weiner, we pride ourselves on speaking directly with our clients about their case, the factors involved in settlement, the fair amount that we believe should be achieved, and how to decide when to say yes to a settlement proposal.

Call us today.  Don’t Settle For Less!

Speaking with an insurance company directly can be dangerous to your wealth!

One of our clients was contacted by an insurance company settle an accident case. He was offered $5,000 for himself and his wife’s injuries. After he hired us to represent him, we obtained an $800,000.00 settlement!

Can you put a price on pain and suffering?

Imagine this: You go in for routine surgery at the recommendation of your trusted doctor. You kiss your family goodbye and are wheeled into the operating room. Hours later you wake up in recovery. Instantly you know something isn’t right. You call for a nurse. As she hovers over you, the look of concern in her eyes is evident. “What happened?” you ask. “Sir, there was a bit of a problem during your surgery…” Through her muddled sentences you are only able to make out one word. “Paralyzed.”
Now, imagine this: It’s two years later. You’re confined to a wheelchair, out of work and severely depressed. Your medical bills guzzle up what little state-assisted income you receive. As a construction worker you know your professional future is limited. The only glimmer of retribution is the possible settlement from a medical malpractice lawsuit against the doctor and hospital who are liable for your paralysis. However, what once would have been a sizable settlement that would have provided necessary income for the rest of your life, is now limited thanks to Governor Andrew Cuomo’s radical Medicaid reform.
After his State of the State address in January, Governor Cuomo appointed a task force to find ways to reduce costs and increase the quality and efficiency of New York State’s Medicaid program. As one of the 79 recommendations, the Medicaid Redesign Team has proposed capping non-economic awards, such as pain and suffering, in medical malpractice cases at $250,000. Lawmakers have tried in the past to create such caps, but the proposals have always been rejected by the Assembly majority.
According to The New York Times, “Critics of the malpractice proposal accuse Mr. Cuomo of selling out patients to please the hospitals and get them on his side.” These critics are right. “They take issue with the substance of the proposal, question whether the malpractice changes would actually save the state money and asserting that they would make it more difficult for New Yorkers to get compensation in cases of doctor wrong-doing.” What’s more, creating this cap would eventually save hospitals $700 million a year, a savings that comes at the cost of injured victims.
Placing a set number on how much a victim can recover is a direct violation of our civil justice system. The New York Bar Association, who also oppose proposal, states that the purpose of our tort system is “to make whole or compensate the victims of harm caused by negligence of others.” Capping this kind of compensation discriminates against victims who suffer the most devastating physical and psychological losses as well as those with low or no income.
In reality, the amount you might recover in a lawsuit will be further reduced by liens placed on th recovery by health care insurance companies. They just can’t get enough of your money. After paying sky high premiums to have health insurance, then being injured by a doctor and needing additional care, your health insurance company can take back what they paid for your care from any amount you receive in a settlement. We think it’s not fair.
Governor Cuomo’s Medicaid Redesign Team is extremely close to creating unfair changes within our civil justice system. If passed, the proposal threatens to take away the court’s power to decide the amount awarded to victims, like the one mentioned above, disrupting the legal system as we know it and allowing hospitals and doctors to avoid paying for their grave errors. Call Governor Cuomo and tell him you don’t want the government messing with the court system given to us by the Constitution.
Visit our website for more information.

Stop and Frisk: NYC’s Police State

Reibman & Weiner has been litigating civil rights for nearly 20 years.

Today the New York Times reported what we at Reibman & Weiner have long suspected: That the level of police intrusion into the lives of African-American and Hispanic members of our community is at an all time high.

Targeted policing is meant to put officers in high crime areas. But it seems that every resident of a high crime neighborhood is being targeted by the police procedure known as “stop and frisk.”

In 2009, there were nearly 600,000 such stop and frisk events reported by City cops. The most common reason given for stopping and frisking so many people was that the person targeted engaged in “furtive movements.” Do you think the average cop who is doing the stop and frisk and writing the report knows the definition of the word “furtive”? My Webster’s Dictionary defines furtive as “expressive of stealth.” So all of us who glance over our shoulder or walk with our heads down or look side to side or walk in one direction then reverse course suddenly may be considered to be engaged in furtive movements and subject to police questioning.

And what happens if the police engage in their inquiry of you and you rightfully refuse to speak with them? In our experience, this leads to an aggressive response with the police escalating the intrusion with the use of physical force and the power of arrest and incarceration. Mostly, we find that the cops do this to teach a lesson: cooperate with us or face the consequences. The cops even have a name for it. It’s called bullpen therapy. That’s when they arrest someone for no reason and the arresting officer knows the person will be released after about 24 hours of incarceration.

We have represented hundreds of people who have done nothing wrong, have been arrested and spent 24 to 36 hours and longer locked up and then sent home without ever being charged with a crime or violation of law of any sort. While in policy custody our innocent clients have been refused telephone calls, refused the use of medically necessary medicines, refused medical attention, have been taunted and subject to degrading comments by the police and have been subjected to unlawful strip searches.

When you or someone you know has been the subject of an NYPD stop and frisk, police brutality, or false arrest for no reason, your constitutional rights have been violated. You are entitled to seek monetary compensation by bringing a claim against the police and the City of New York based on the violation of your rights. We do this for clients every day. We have recovered millions of dollars in compensation for our clients based on constitutional violations by the City of New York and the NYPD.

Call us first. We can help. Don’t settle for less. 1-718-522-1743

www.ReibmanWeiner.com

Medical Malpractice and the “Standard of Care”

A successful medical malpractice lawsuit requires the plaintiff to prove that the doctor or hospital’s conduct did not comply with the standard of care recognized in the medical community and that the failure to comply with the accepted standard of care caused the injury alleged.

But what if a standard medical practice itself falls below acceptable medical conduct as defined by long accepted science? That is a question we see when asking whether a hospital acquired infection is the result of medical malpractice or is just the price we pay for doctors and nurses who refuse or fail to simply wash their hands, change IV catheters properly, or otherwise engage in conduct that is deleterious to their patients but may save the doctors some time.

When I was medical school and training in the mid-1980′s, we were constantly instructed to wash our hands between each patient contact. Twenty-five years later, the director of the Federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reported that hospital infection rates have been reduced because of attention to basic standards of care, including hand hygiene, disinfection of patients, sterile handling of equipment and proper use of antibiotics. But there is still a medical culture at hospitals which neglects attention to basic cleanliness and infection control measures such as hand washing.

As of 2002, the Centers for Disease Control reported that at least 1.7 million hospital patients acquire a hospital infection each year. That number has to be gross understatement because such reports are gathered, for the most, from voluntary reporting systems or state mandated reporting for the most severe infections. You can read more about that here: www.hospitalinfection.org

So what does this have to do with malpractice lawsuits? If you allege that you acquired an infection in the hospital that resulted in terrible consequences to you we must prove your case in court. To do so requires proof that the doctor’s failure to wash his hands or to comply with known protocols for sterility was a departure from accepted standards of medical care. Well, guess what? The accepted standard of care for hand washing is that it is not always performed. The defense to such a suit is that the “standard of care” is different from what is perfect care. In essence, even though we know that sloppy care (the doctor not washing his hands between every patient contact) is causing this problem, everyone forgets from time to time and we accept that. In other words, the doctor comes to court and says he tries to wash his hands every time but sometimes he forgets and that is the standard, so his behavior has not departed from the standard of care. And remember, if the doctor did not depart from the standard of care, then your case does not even get off the ground because there cannot be malpractice without a departure from the “accepted standard of care.”

www.ReibmanWeiner.com

www.BronxMedicalMalpracticeLawyersFirm.com

www.BrooklynMedicalMalpracticeLawyersFirm.com

Brooklyn Lawyers, Reibman & Weiner, Win Lawsuit Discovering Evidence of NYC’s Cost Saving Practice That May Cost Lives

Despite warnings in 36 previous cases in which 31 people died during a three year period, the City of New York continued to use unapproved and expired batteries in the defibrillators used on EMS ambulances. As a result, when the ambulance crews tried to use their defibrillators to shock patients’ hearts back into a normal heartbeat, the defibrillators failed because the batteries were dead. On August 12, 2000, Toni Ann Joline, a 40 year-old mother, became the 32nd fatality in a three year period as a result of the City’s failure to heed repeated warnings and instructions from the manufacturer of the defibrillator, the Laerdal Heartstart 3000.

In a lawsuit the City fought for six years, the husband and daughter of Mrs. Joline had their day in court when the case went to trial during the summer of 2007 in Queens County Supreme Court. The Brooklyn based attorneys, Reibman & Weiner for the Joline family discovered during the lawsuit that the City received written warnings from the defibrillator manufacturer on 36 separate occasions to only use the manufacturer’s batteries and to never use batteries that were more than 2 years old. Despite the previous warnings, when a Laerdal technician examined the defibrillator used to treat Mrs. Joline he found that the one of the batteries was over six years old and one was over 10 years old.

The incident occurred when Mrs. Joline and her mother were stuck in traffic on the Van Wyck Expressway. Just as an ambulance pulled up along side of the Joline vehicle, Mrs. Joline slumped over. The paramedics attended to her immediately. They determined that Mrs. Joline’s heart could be shocked back into a normal rhythm and applied the defibrillator. The first battery failed to deliver a shock. The backup battery was used and that, too, failed. Mrs. Joline was then transported to Jamaica Hospital where her heart was started. The forty minutes that elapsed between the time when Mrs. Joline’s heart stopped and when it was restarted at the hospital deprived her brain of oxygen and she never fully regained consciousness. She died eight months later, leaving her husband Richard and her eight year old daughter Jessica.

The City tried to have the case thrown out and lost. The City appealed that decision, further delaying the trial, but it lost the appeal as well. The appellate decision is reported at, Joline v The City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 492 (2d Dep’t 2006) LEXIS 10315. The Supreme Court (trial level) decision is reported at, Joline v The City of New York, 2 Misc. 3d 10006A (Sup. Ct., Queens County 2004) LEXIS 237.

The City attempted to defend the case by claiming it had no responsibility to a patient who is unconscious, an argument that it had lost twice. Marc Reibman, the Joline family attorney, points out “the City was really trying to apply different standards of care to different types of patients. For example, anyone who is considered legally incompetent, like an unconscious person, would fall under the new rule the City is trying to create. The same rule would include children, mentally disabled people, Alzheimer’s patients, and intoxicated persons. That was, and should be, recognized as a preposterous argument.”

Regarding the trial, Mr. Reibman notes the “evidence of incompetence on the City’s part was overwhelming. They never had any acceptable explanation for why the City failed to supply its ambulances with proper working batteries. You can buy them from a catalog or online.” And, he continued, “as any qualified and honest doctor will tell you, every minute is critical when it comes to reviving someone’s heart and getting oxygen to their brain. In this case, the paramedics were on the scene immediately and started treatment. All their efforts were wasted because the City gave them bad batteries. Had the batteries worked, Toni Ann would be alive and well today.”

During the six years the City defended the case, it never offer any settlement. The City called a witness at trial who testified that the City tried to buy more batteries during the time in question but was unable to do so. Mr. Reibman counters, “we believe the City continued to follow the same practice after Toni Ann’s death and we don’t know what it does today. That’s even more perplexing.”

Mr. Joline states, “It’s hard to believe the City couldn’t find the right batteries to use on their ambulances. My daughter is growing up without her mother because of that. This case was brought to get justice for Toni Ann, my daughter, and all the other families who lost loved ones because of expired batteries and to prevent this kind of tragedy in the future.”

The jury heard all the evidence and the lawyers on both sides delivered their closing arguments at the conclusion of the month long trial. Before the jury could make its final determination the City offered a substantial sum of money in final settlement of the case and asked that the amount remain confidential.

Reibman & Weiner has offices located at 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York. The firm is conveniently located in downtown Brooklyn, accessible by many subway lines to the Court Street/Borough Hall station or to Jay Street. Reibman & Weiner handle lawsuits in all New York City courts, including Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Richmond County, Staten Island. Reibman & Weiner also handle cases in Westchester, Orange, Nassau and other New York counties and has an active Federal practice in both the Southern District of New York in Manhattan and the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn.

Reibman & Weiner, Attorneys
26 Court Street, Suite 1808
Brooklyn, New York 11242
T: 718-522-1743
F: 718-643-9297
Marc Reibman, Esq
Steven Weiner, Esq

http://www.brooklynlawyersfirm.com

Brooklyn Law Firm, Reibman & Weiner Protects Accident Victims from Ruthless Insurance Companies Who Refuse to Offer Full Compensation

According to the Federal Highway Administration, approximately 115 people die daily in car crashes. In the United States, that’s an average of over 6,000,000 car accidents annually. Thousands of people are either killed or injured in car accidents every 13 minutes.

Car accidents cost tax payers over 230 Billion dollars annually. It’s no wonder why so many families have been left financially crippled due to a bread winner of the family becoming disabled after a car accident.

Brooklyn Lawyers Reibman & Weiner are helping many accident victims and their families by fighting for their right to be “fully” compensated after a car accident.

Lawsuits to Recover Compensation for Suffering, Pain & Income Lost

In the case of Scott vs. Barone, Reibman & Weiner’s client, Mr. Scott, was sideswiped by a 35,000 pound truck while driving in his sedan on the Whitestone Bridge. The impact of the accident caused Mr. Scott’s car to rollover which left him trapped inside the vehicle causing him to suffer nerve damage and a fractured left arm.

Mr. Scott endured multiple surgeries in order to repair his arm and to reclaim full function of the nerves to his hand. Brooklyn Lawyers Reibman & Weiner thoroughly investigated Mr. Scott’s case and initiated a lawsuit and trial.

The insurance company for the truck driver and the insurance company of the truck company initially offered to settle for only $500,000. Reibman & Weiner continued the litigation until achieving a settlement for Mr. Scott in excess of $2,750,000. Although Mr. Scott lost the ability to use his left arm as fully as before the accident, he used a portion of his settlement money to launch his own successful small business.

Brooklyn Lawyers Reibman & Weiner have experience with many motor vehicle accident cases. Many accident victims believe the motor vehicle insurance term “No Fault” means accident victims automatically receive compensation for their injuries regardless of who is at fault during an accident.

To their dismay, it really means the victim may receive medical and a limited amount of lost income benefits from the responsible motor vehicle insurance company.

Even if the defendant driver is completely responsible for causing the accident, the victim’s injuries may not qualify one to recover compensation in a lawsuit.

Brooklyn lawyers Reibman & Weiner are committed to helping injured drivers, passengers and pedestrians involved in accidents get the monetary compensation they deserve after a motor vehicle accident.

About the Brooklyn Law Firm

Brooklyn lawyers Reibman & Weiner have over 50 years of combined experience in law. The law firm offers free consultation to all accident victims. For further details on Reibman & Weiner, visit: http://www.brooklynlawyersfirm.com.

Reibman & Weiner
26 Court St.
Brooklyn, New York 11242
(718) 522-7056
(718) 522-1743

http://www.brooklynlawyersfirm.com

Brooklyn Injury Lawyers, Reibman & Weiner Help Personal Injury Victims Obtain Compensation.

Brooklyn Lawyers Marc Reibman and Steven Weiner have helped injured victims involved in slip and fall accidents, injuries caused by defective curbs, roadways and injuries that involve bus, truck and subway accidents.

One of many cases Reibman & Weiner has acquired is a $867,000.00 verdict in Elam vs. New York City Transit Authority. Mrs. Elam slipped and fell on a defective step in the defendant’s subway station. Her personal injuries included two broken bones in her right foot. Although the jury’s verdict was sustained by the Court of Appeals, Reibman & Weiner had to execute on the Transit Authority’s bank accounts to attain the client’s judgment.

“Our mission is to seek justice for all the damages that our clients sustained” according to Reibman & Weiner.

Victims of personal injury are advised to first seek medical attention then contact a good Brooklyn lawyers firm. Clients who choose Reibman & Weiner are given a one-on-one consultation at their Brooklyn law office.

During consultation, an attorney takes a detailed statement from the client in order to gather as much factual information about the incident. Based on the facts the client has provided, the attorney then discusses the type of lawsuit that may be possible and answer any questions the client may have.

Reibman & Weiner has helped their clients to seek the right compensation that they deserve. Most of all, they are loyal to their clients and they keep everything involving their personal injury case confidential in order to protect their client’s interest.

About Brooklyn Lawyers Reibman & Weiner

Reibman & Weiner have 50 years of combined experience in law. Marc Reibman & Steven Weiner take pride in the fact that they provide their clients with friendly personal attention in the following areas of law:

• Personal Injury
• Defective Products
• Medical Malpractice
• Civil Rights Violations
• Motorcycle Accidents
• Defective & Dangerous Drugs
• Drug Recalls
• Police Brutality
• Plane & Helicopter Crashes
• Nursing Home Abuse
• Car & Truck Accidents
• Wrongful Death
• Birth Injuries
• Brain Injuries
• Construction Accidents
• Cerebral Palsy
• Erb’s Palsy
• Lawsuits against the City of New York

Brooklyn Injury Law Firm, Reibman & Weiner is located at 26 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York.

Reibman & Weiner
Website: http://www.brooklynlawyersfirm.com

http://www.reibmanweiner.com

http://www.brooklynpolicebrutalitylawyers.com

htt://www.bronxpolicebrutalitylawyers.com
26 Court Street
Suite 1808
Brooklyn, NY 11242
Telephone: (718) 522-1743

Brooklyn Attorneys Marc Reibman & Steven Weiner

Marc Reibman is a graduate of the Boston University School of Law. He began practicing law in 1981 with the well known New York firm of Costello & Shea. At Costello & Shea, Marc handled medical malpractice, product liability and admiralty cases. In 1986, Marc left Costello & Shea to start his own firm representing personal injury victims at this current office location. Marc represents the victims of many different kinds of negligence including catastrophic motor vehicle accidents, construction site accidents, slip, trip, and fall cases, medical malpractice, and defective products. Marc takes pride in obtaining maximum settlements or jury verdicts for his clients. He has tried numerous cases where the jury reached a verdict in excess of a million dollars. Marc has the largest verdict in New York State for a short duration of pain and suffering. ($10,500,000.00 for two and a half minutes of suffering in an elevator death case). In many other cases the defendants have settled with Marc for millions of dollars without going to trial. Marc handles all phases of cases personally from the initial client interview to depositions, to court appearances and trials. Marc is most proud of obtaining jury verdicts or settlements for clients who were turned away by other firms because their case seemed to be too complicated or not sufficiently significant. Marc has a particular expertise in cases that require scientific or engineering analysis to understand the mechanism of injury. As a result of his hard work and the successful representation of his clients, a very large percentage of the firm’s clients are referred to the firm by former clients who were satisfied with the personal attention and care they received during the pendency of their lawsuits.

Brooklyn Lawyer

Steven Weiner began practicing law in 1990 at the large “Wall Street” firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Before Steven became a lawyer, he graduated from medical school and was a licensed practicing physician. Steven worked at Stroock for three years during which time he participated in complex product liability litigation and other areas of general practice litigation. Steven left Stroock to pursue his interest in helping individual people instead of representing large corporations. Steven joined Marc’s practice in 1993. Marc and Steven have established a successful partnership that builds on each other’s strengths. Because of his medical background, Steven is able to quickly read and analyze voluminous medical records — often finding significant evidence of malpractice or injury that would be difficult for an attorney without a medical background to find. Steven represents clients at all stages of litigation — from initial case evaluation and intake, to jury trial or settlement. Steven is particularly proud of his work in the area of civil rights and police brutality litigation. Steven has represented many people who have been unlawfully incarcerated, physically abused, or harassed by the police or other law enforcement authorities. Satisfied clients continue to refer others who have been injured through no fault of their own.

To read more about Reibman & Weiner visit www.brooklynlawyersfirm.com

Reibman & Weiner launch new websites

Brooklyn Lawyers, Reibman & Weiner Launch new website. http://www.BrooklynLawyersFirm.com

www.NewYorkCityPersonalInjuryLawyers.info