Leading GOP candidate Rick Santorum is facing some tough questions about an apparent contradiction between his support for caps on medical malpractice compensation totaling $250,000 and his wife suing for $500,000. Karen Santorum sued Dr. David Dolberg of Springfield, VA in 1999 after she visited him in 1996 for an adjustment. She claims the adjustment was done incorrectly and resulted in a herniated disk, surgery, and multiple doctors' visit. The jury awarded Karen Santorum $350,000 for her medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering, however, the final award was reduced to $175,000 by the judge.

Santorum's stance on caps had already been made public in 1994, but at an interview during the trial he stated that because of the case he may be willing to support a higher award. But since then he's stuck to the $250,000 amount for non-economic damages. Should Rick Santorum be elected President it is conceivable that this sort of cap would be a major part of his agenda and could be passed as a national limit on damages.
In the case of Karen Santorum, the alleged error resulted in an injured back and she claims she was unable to campaign with her husband for a period of time and was emotionally damaged due to weight gain. But it's easy to see how other cases can do so much worse damage. These caps unfairly limit the amount of money that a plaintiff deserves should they find themselves the victim of negligent care by a medical professional.

Many states already limit the different kinds of damages that can be claimed in lawsuits; Virginia in particular has an "aggregate cap" that means a plaintiff can currently only receive $2 million in all damages associated with medical malpractice (the Virginia legislature has authorized a $50,000 increase yearly for 20 years beginning July 1, 2012.)

Imagine a young man working as a web designer losing his eye sight due to a botched procedure. He'd be unable to continue in his career field as well as having to live the rest of his life without his vision. In Virginia he'd be unable to claim more than $2 million from the physician or insurance provider which may barely cover lost wages, not to mention the medical bills, distress, and other issues that come along with a tragedy of this magnitude.

When Rick Santorum proposes putting a cap on non-economic damages, it's a giveaway to the doctors and insurance companies. It places a cap on what a person is worth following an injury and gives no leeway to juries to dictate what is and isn't appropriate. Someone who suffers a personal injury in his twenties loses much more than an individual in his seventies who has the same injury. And if Santorum's fear is juries awarding unnecessarily large awards, his wife's own case is proof enough that judges will use their discretion and override their judgment.

Damages resulting from a medical malpractice lawsuit should be determined between the two parties to the lawsuit, the jury, and ultimately the judge. It's inappropriate and unnecessary for politicians to establish artificial limits on what a victim deserves.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Payments in Virginia" »

We are in a recession and everyone is being impacted in some way, shape or form. When one person in the household loses or experiences a decrease in their income, everyone has to make cutbacks. Sometimes the sacrifices the family makes are as simple as skipping a vacation or vacationing somewhere local. Other times the change is as drastic as selling the family home in favor of a modest apartment in a less expensive area. Of course there are examples of other degrees of things done to save money from bartering services to changing grocery stores to changing salons. These changes often build character and help the family grow. They are also difficult decisions for anyone to make, even individuals without families.

Most people who go to salons trust the employees and they have a relationship of some sort with them, even if they only see them once a month. People go to salons more regularly in the warmer months for services such as pedicures and waxing. These services may seem cosmetic but can be very dangerous. . I have gone to salons and heard people say I am ok with paying extra because it is clean and I trust the staff. In situations where finances are tight, one may not be able to afford the extra and would find the need to change salons. It is important in these situations to choose a reputable one in order to protect your health.

In some less expensive salons, the staff may cut costs by skimping on the quality of the products used or by cutting corners on the process used to discard or maintain the sanitation of the tools used. Error like this can lead to things like fungal infections and the spread of venereal diseases. If a tub is not properly cleaned between uses and/or tools are not sterilized, then there is a risk of passing one persons bacteria or illness to another person. During a bikini wax, if the instrument is dipped into the wax multiple times, the germ/bacteria can be transferred into the wax and then onto the next customer.

In cases where you can no longer afford some of the luxuries that you once afforded, it is always good advice to take it in stride. It is best to be prudent and carefully scrutinize the alternatives. I always tell people you have the right to ask for new tools and to be picky about what is used on you. You also have the right to leave if the conditions do not look sanitary.

If you have been injured by a salon that you trusted, immediately seek medical care. Once the issue is diagnosed and a plan of care is made, call an attorney to protect your legal rights.

If you are in Virginia and in need of a defense attorney, contact an experienced Fairfax Criminal Lawyer for a free consultation.

With the prominence of insurance company advertisements on the radio, on television, in print, and in online media, it can be difficult to differentiate between inexpensive coverage and prudent coverage. One feature that everyone shopping for insurance should look for is personal injury protection, also called PIP, or medical payments coverage. It allows for payments of an injured person's bills, regardless of fault, and it can be a great way to defer initial out-of-pocket expenses while waiting for a case to settle. Additionally, it can be invaluable in the rare instance where the driver is the cause of his or her own injury.

Once upon a time, PIP coverage was considered so important that several states made it a mandatory provision of their insured's policies, including Maryland and, more notoriously, Florida. Florida's PIP requirement, passed in 1972, requires all drivers to carry $10,000 in coverage. By contrast, a typical non-mandatory policy in other states is often issued in increments as low as $2,000. The Florida requirement has surely benefitted thousands who have found themselves injured as a result of another's negligence, or even their own negligence. But recently, the Florida PIP law has become a target for insurance reform. Insurance groups have estimated that PIP related fraud neared $1 billion in the 2011 fiscal year. Consumer advocate groups are likewise seeking reform because the cost of that alleged fraud, largely from staged accidents and other false claims, is passed on to the customer through higher premiums. And an unlikely partner, civil rights and civil liberty advocates, have joined the reform calls as they argue that the hostile nature of insurance adjusters towards claimants in Florida has invaded the personal freedom of the insured, including asking difficult and often embarrassing questions they argue are meant to chill the claims.

It is unclear what Florida is going to do with its PIP requirement. A whole generation of drivers has grown up with this coverage as part of their lives. Current proposals include requiring injured persons to seek medical care at an approved list of providers within a seventy-two (72) hour period and requiring the injured person to submit to an independent medical examination (IME).

From the prospective of a Virginia personal injury attorney, I cringe at the latter proposal. One of my first lessons in this fascinating area of law was that IME is the ultimate misnomer. A medical examination conducted at the request of the insurance company, or defense counsel advocating for the insurance company, and conducted by a physician being compensated by the same parties for his opinion can hardly be considered "independent." Another proposed provision limits reimbursements to certain providers, targeting groups that are perceived as more likely to engage in fraudulent behavior, including physician's assistants, dentists and chiropractors.

Similar to the proposed IME language, any restrictions on treatment options bring a chill to my spine. Not every injured person will have unlimited medical treatment options, some will be uninsured, some will be resistant to surgical procedures, and some will be seen by urgent care clinics and family practices instead of emergency rooms. The legislature should not dictate the freedom to seek treatment. Leave those decisions up to the patients and then allow the insurers and their skilled adjusters, with the help of trained personal injury attorneys, to evaluate the claims for merit. Yes, the few bad apples will make the news and leave a bitter taste for some. However, for the majority of those who are legitimately injured and seek the assistance of a personal injury attorney, the system will prevail and will prevail in a timely manner. Reactive and hastily drafted regulations are not the appropriate way to reform a largely self-regulating system.

For a Virginia personal injury attorney, of course, mandatory PIP or medical coverage is not something I worry about on a daily basis. Virginia allows its citizenry to make these important decisions about whether they are cost conscious or risk averse, and informed consumers can decide what is best for them. In my years of experience, however, I can confidently say that anyone who does not voluntarily add PIP or medical payments coverage to their existing policy is doing themselves and their loved ones a great disservice. Insurance is all too often seen as a luxury, until an accident or injury happens. When you consider Virginia's tough stance on liability, contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery, PIP or medical payments coverage is even more crucial. Don't say I didn't warn you.