Monday, December 18, 2006

Insurance Industry Profits to hit Record High

 



The New York Times reported in October that insurance experts expect industry profits to hit $60 billion ($60,000,000,000.00) in 2006 because of increased premiums for customers on the coasts,smaller payouts for natural disasters and larger investment returnss, as well as increased profits in the areas of auto insurance, workers compensation and general liability.

"The insurance industry has made excuses for its premium increase by making scapegoats out of individuals who have been harmed by the fault of another ," said Rhonda Davis, President of the Ohio Academy of trial lawyers. " By their own admission insurance companies are recording incredible profits.

According to the article, Robert Hartwig, chief economist of the insurance information institute, said "we think we're going to have some good numbers."

"How is that for an understatement" says Anthony Castelli attorney.

Thursday, December 7, 2006

WELDING ROD INJURY

 

Introduction: Welding Safety and Manganese Poisoning
Excessive exposure to managanese fumes can cause a variety of neurological injuries, including tremors and other movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease and a disease called manganism that resembles Parkinson's disease. Often the damage caused by exposure to manganese exposure is permanent and progressive, meaning that it gets worse over time. Additional Resources


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attorney Contact

Your Legal Rights

Frequently Asked
Questions

Manganism
Explained


Welders are injured when small airborne particles of manganese in the welding fumes enter the nose or mouth and then travel from the nose or lungs into the bloodstream and then across the blood-brain barrier. Once in the brain, manganese can affect parts of the brain that control muscle movement and other bodily functions.
Symptoms associated with inhalation of manganese welding rod fumes include slowing of movement, arms that do not swing when walking, tremors, delays in performing routine tasks, masklike or blank face, mumbling speech, lack of energy, difficulty sleeping, headache, anxiety, sexual dysfunction and bed-wetting.
The law of most states provides several personal injury claims for persons who have been seriously injured by a product. Welders injured by exposure to manganese fumes may bring claims without concern of limitation under state workers compensation laws because the defendants in this litigation often are the manufacturers of the welding rods themselves, not the welders' employer.
Claims that have been brought against welding equipment manufacturers include claims for negligence, strict liability for a defective product, as well as claims based on failure to warn and even fraud. Evidence exists that manufacturers have been aware of the permanent and progressive health risks associated with manganese welding rod fumes for decades. Damages sought typically include damages for:
Physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and physical impairment;
Medical expenses associated with the allegedly defective product;
Loss of earnings and/or earning capacity; and
Punitive damages.

4 Deadly Sins That Can Ruin Your Personal Injury Car Accident Claim

 



There are many critical decisions and actions that can affect whether you get full compensation for your personal/bodily injury claim. The insurance company will not tell you about them until they come to you with a low ball offer. Here are four critical things you must be aware of.

1. Do not give a taped statement to any insurance company until you consult with an attorney. For instance a casual comment about speed could wreck your case. You will be asked the speed you were going and if you know the speed limit. Critical errors in your statemment could later be held against you.

2. Stating injuries that are not reflected in your medical records or concealing prior injuries. If your credibility is damaged your case is severely compromised.

3. Delay in seeking medical treatment. Many folks think they can shake off a minor injury only to find that it worsens into a significant problem. The chances of your injury being attributed to the injury causing event is lessened the greater you delay treatment.

4. Failure to follow your doctor's treatment . The insurance company will tell you that you must not have been hurt very much if you don't folow your doctor's orders.

If your case is significant the best thing you can do is hire, or at least, consult an attorney experienced in personal injury claims. Without an attorney you have little leverage against big insurance. A good attorney can help you get it right the first time and take the hassle out of fighting a battle you are not armed and prepared for.

If you have any questions about your claim Anthony Castelli would be glad to provide a free initial conultation. www.castellilaw.com

Sunday, December 3, 2006

Ethical Personal Injury Referrals

 



It any case it is critical to get the client to an attorney familiar with handling the type of case the client has.

For example a car accident victim might come to the attorney that did their will. This attorney not wanting to give up a fee, might take on the case and figure he can settle. But what if the insurance company's offer is unfair. The attorney must learn what to do, get the client to take the lowball offer or withdraw.

However there is another solution that works from the very beginning. The attorney could refer the case to an experienced personal injury attorney and request a portion of the fee. This is best accomplished under Ohio ethical rules by both attorneys signing on to the fee contract, full disclosure to the client, and both attorneys and under the new ethical rules both attorneys sign the required disbursements form at the end of the case.

This way the clients interests are served and the attorney who initiated the client will be compensated.

anthony Castelli Attorney is available to accept refferals or co-counsel relationships. http://www.castellilaw.com

Thursday, November 23, 2006

CINCINNATI CAR ACCIDENT LAWYER FEES

 



If you have sufferred a personal injury as a result of the fault of another you may be considering hiring a lawyer experienced in injury claims. Most cases such as these are car accident cases.

In other articles I have covered how to find a good personal injury lawyer. Lets assume that you have found a lawyer you like. What should you pay him?

Most lawyers in the personal injury field charge 1/3 of the gross recovery. Thus they gamble their time and often their money and the door to the courthouse is open to the injury victim by means of the lawyer's services without the victim risking a big attorney bill that they might not be able to pay since with a contingency fee their is no fee payment to the attorney unless there is a recovery of money.

However in some cases the question is not will there be a recovery but how much will the recovery be. For instance lets assume you were rear ended , the independant witnesses verify this and you went straight to the hospital where you were operated on for a broken arm. The liability carrier is a fair one and has ample insurance to cover the reasonably expected claim.

Some lawyers would be willing to reduce what they normally charge on a contigency basis since the risk of no recovery appears to be taken out of the equation. I know i would certainly consider it.

So when you meet with a lawyer at the initial consultation don't be scared to ask what his normal fee is and whether he would be willing to reduce it based on the circumstances of your case. I know that I would consider it.


Anhony Castelli Attorney offers free initial consultations and would be proud to have you contact him about your case and the fee he would charge you . www.castellilaw.com

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Abogados Cincinnati

 


Si usted ha sido lesionado o perdido un ser amado en un accidente, usted podría necesitar ayuda obteniendo compensación por esas lesiones, costos médicos, perdida de salario, dolor y sufrimiento. Un accidente que resulte en una lesión seria tal como una lesión cerebral o lesión que lleve a parálisis, puede cambiar una vida en una fracción de segundo. Aun una colisión de impacto liviano puede causar una lesión grave como lesión del cuello, fustigación o lesión de la espalda y afectar la vida de alguien por un periodo largo de tiempo. Un abogado para lesiones personales puede ayudar a una persona lesionada a pasar a través del proceso del sistema legal para obtener una compensación justa por las lesiones y perdidas.

If you have been injured or lost a loved one in an accident, you could need aid obtaining compensation for injuries, medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering. An accident that causes a serious injury such as a head injury or injury that causes paralysis, can change a life in a fraction of second.

A collision of light impact can cause a serious injury to the neck, or injury tothe back and affect your life for a long period of time. A lawyer for personal injuries can help an injured person through the process of the legal system to obtain fair compensation for the loss caused by the injuries.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

!0 PROMISES LAWYERS YOUR LAWYER SHOULD MAKE TO YOU

 

Our Commitment to Clients:
To treat you with respect and courtesy.

To handle your legal matter competently and diligently, in accordance with the highest standards of the profession.

To exercise independent professional judgment on your behalf.

To charge a reasonable fee and to explain in advance how that fee will be computed and billed.

To return telephone calls promptly.

To keep you informed and provide you with copies of important papers.

To respect your decisions on the objectives to be pursued in your case, as permitted by law and the rules of professional conduct.

To work with other participants in the legal system to make our legal system more accessible and responsive.

To preserve the client confidences learned during our lawyer-client relationship.

To exhibit the highest degree of ethical conduct in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Bar Act.


Based upon the American Bar Association Declaration of Commitment to Clients

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

The Biggest Insurance Company Myth

 


Liability insurance companies are fond of telling injury victims that here is our offer take it or leave it, you won't get any more . And if you higher a lawyer they will take a third so you best take our offer. Don't fall for that line. At least consult with an attorney to see if that is even remotely close to the truth.

Stop and consider is the insurance company on your side. No their loyalty is to their shareholders. The more they take in and the less they pay out the better off they are NOT You.

I welcome people with offers to come to me for a free consultation. If I think I can do better for you and decide to take your case I'll agree not to take a fee out of the money already on the table in the form of a written offer.

So the next time Big insurance tries to bully you into taking their offer call an experienced personal injury attorney and see if he thinks you are being treated fairly. If your live in Greater Cincinnati area I invite you to call me for a free consultation. What have you got to loose and you might be favorably surprised when you end up with more than what the insurance company advises.

Anthony Castelli Cincinnati Ohio Accident and injury law www.castellilaw.com

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Allstate Injury Claims Are you in good hands

Here is an interesting article reprinted from the source shown below. i have tried several jury cases against AllState and I am happy to make them pay when they fail to pay fair compensation. www.castellilaw.com







"Wearing them out, wearing them down through intractable, no-holds-barred litigation," Berardinelli said. "For this company, you can get prompt payment if you're willing to accept 65 cents on the dollar. Or you can get fair payment if you're willing to endure years of intractable litigation and the cost and the grief that goes along with that.

"It's prompt or fair treatment, but not both."
Allstate's lawyers say the company is simply trying to root out fraud, which they say upsets trial lawyers who once viewed minor car accidents as a quick payout. The insurance company also said it examines each claim on its merits and offers fair payments.

At the heart of the Hager suit, and similar battles against Allstate around the country, are 12,500 pages of documents that trial lawyers say lay out a blueprint for nationwide fraud.

Known as the McKinsey documents, they are actually slide shows produced by international consulting firm McKinsey & Co., which Allstate hired in the early 1990s to redesign the way it handles claims.

Former Enron President Jeff Skilling was a McKinsey alumnus and former partner. Business Week has called Minsey, which consulted with Enron for two decades, "a key architect that made Enron a Wall Street darling."

McKinsey officials declined to comment for this article.
Allstate has fought to keep the documents from the public -- even admittedly defying a New Mexico court order to release them -- though their existence has been the subject of a recent book and articles in publications such as Business Week and the Chicago Tribune.

Portions of the McKinsey documents have been shown at least twice in open court -- once in Geneva Hager's case last year, when her attorneys asked Circuit Judge Thomas Clark to give her lawsuit class certification. Those files are now sealed in Lexington as well.

If allowed to proceed, Hager's suit could include thousands of Kentuckians who suffered soft-tissue injuries in wrecks with minor property damage.

Clark is expected to rule any day.
Stalling tactics alleged
It took two years for Geneva Hager, a passenger in the Dakota, to resolve her claim for $25,000 for neck and back injuries with Allstate, which insured truck driver Thomas J. Lapointe Jr. The company did not make a formal offer until four days after Hager's case was scheduled for trial.

Hager's story is too common, her attorney Paul Kaplan said.
Kaplan warned Hager to prepare for a long fight the day he met her. It's what he tells all clients who have insurance claims with Allstate.

For years, Kaplan thought delays were the unintended consequence of the company defending too many claims. Only after Hager sued Allstate for allegedly handling her claim in bad faith did Kaplan realize it was "trying to maximize its financial benefit by dragging its feet," he said.

Allstate's procedures were implemented in 1995 and are called Core Claim Process Redesign. CCPR, the brainchild of McKinsey & Co., classifies claims based on several factors, such as attorney representation, soft tissue injuries or whether it's the subject of litigation.

What stands to become the most famous of the McKinsey slides is one stating that injury victims who do not hire lawyers could get "good hands" treatment. The 10 percent who hire lawyers, however, get the "boxing gloves" and could take as long as four years to resolve their claim.

The slide was shown in court during the Hager case last year.
The first step of CCPR, trial lawyers say, is to discourage claimants from hiring an attorney. Trial lawyers say those who do hire attorneys are subject to invasive requests for medical records, needless examinations and endless requests for documents.

Reading from a script, claims representatives act empathetic and try to build rapport with unrepresented claimants, said Linda Brown, who in the mid-1990s was a high-ranking Allstate official in Kentucky -- and who has provided testimony in court cases, including Hager's. Brown, who spoke to the Herald-Leader, supervised adjusters and approved offers.

After investigating a claim, adjusters would run it through a computer program called Colossus, which produces a range of settlement values that adjusters rarely could exceed, Brown said.

But the ranges were often undervalued because the results relied too heavily on medical treatment, Brown said in affidavits and in the interview. It was poor at factoring in such human elements as pain and suffering.

On top of that, the program was "tuned" to produce lower values more to Allstate's liking, Brown said. The company also left jury verdicts -- which typically are higher than settlements -- out of the database, skewing the results, she said in an affidavit.

Colossus is the subject of numerous lawsuits against Allstate and other insurance companies. The industry has said the program is just a tool that guides decisions on settlements. Allstate has denied rigging Colossus.

Claims representatives were under tremendous pressure to settle cases quickly and prevent claimants from hiring attorneys, Brown said.

Allstate fired Brown in 1999, citing poor performance and alleged alcohol problems in court documents. She said she was fired because she had complained about the company's claims-handling. Brown, a 12-year employee, filed a wrongful-termination suit against Allstate, but a judge dismissed it in November 2002, after Brown missed numerous depositions, citing medical problems.

Attorney J. Dale Golden, who also represents Hager, said in court that Allstate tied adjusters' compensation to how well they limited claim payments.

Staff were rewarded with trips to resorts and huge bonuses, according to a pleading filed by Lexington trial lawyer Austin Mehr in a Scott County lawsuit against Allstate. At one point, claim payments were an explicit part of employee evaluations.

The McKinsey slides call for adjusters not to re-evaluate their initial offer without a material change in facts. "Stand firm on final offer with no real negotiation," one slide states, according to notes Berardinelli made on the documents. Those notes are now part of the court record in his class-action case in New Mexico.

Minor-impact-soft-tissue claims were targeted for more scrutiny. Insurance experts say soft-tissue claims are the most likely to be fraudulent. Brown said that Allstate arbitrarily capped MIST claims at $2,500, an accusation the company vigorously denies. Debbie Niemer, a former regional casualty manager, has testified that adjusters are trained to assume minor wrecks can't cause significant injuries, Hager's lawyers said in court.

The adjusters also made exhaustive searches for pre-existing injuries, Brown said. She said the company was fishing for excuses not to pay. If a claimant had injured his back two years earlier, for example, adjusters used that to claim he was faking pain or exaggerating the injury, Brown said.

MIST claims typically involve less than $1,000 in property damage, Hager's attorneys have said in court. Since property damage is minimal, Allstate believes it can take such cases to juries and accuse the claimant of lying, Golden said.

The McKinsey documents and CCPR manuals do not explicitly call for needless litigation or fishing for excuses, Berardinelli said. He said it's the totality of the slides that tell the story: the boxing gloves, a slide calling for "aggressive" litigation tactics and another describing claims handling as a "zero sum economic game" in which "Allstate gains -- Others must lose."

"If that isn't explicit enough for you -- the intent behind the protocols -- I don't know what is," he said.
Claims process upheld
Allstate's lawyers dispute criticism of CCPR, contending it's a legitimate way of rooting out fraud and discouraging opportunists. The insurance company examines each claim on its merits and offers fair payments, its attorneys said.

Any delay with Hager's claim is the fault of Kaplan, Allstate's attorneys have argued. They say he refused to allow them to obtain her previous medical records, including those from a workers' compensation claim for a back injury in the early 1990s.

The company also points to a doctor's evaluation that concluded Hager was exaggerating the pain from her injuries.
Once her records were received, Allstate promptly paid the $25,000 policy limits to Hager's claim, the company said.
Kaplan said Allstate was provided with all the records necessary to process her claim by at least May 1998.
Allstate said several state insurance commissions, including Kentucky's, have found its claims-handling procedures in compliance with laws governing claims-settlement practices.

But the Kentucky Office of Insurance reviewed only 10 MIST claims filed from 1995 to 1998 -- too small a sample to definitively speak "to Allstate's claims practices regarding minor-impact claims," communications director Ronda Sloan said.

Some industry-watchers are skeptical of the trial lawyers' claims.
It's ridiculous to think such a massive company could carry out systematic fraud without the public catching wind of it, said Brian Sullivan, editor of Auto Insurance Report, a weekly trade newsletter.

Minor-impact collisions are far more likely to have fraudulent injury claims than any other type of accident, Sullivan said. That justifies increased scrutiny.

Insurance fraud proliferated in the early 1990s because insurers were too quick to fold on small claims, providing steady work for ambulance-chasing lawyers and driving up premiums, Sullivan said.

Trial lawyers think companies play hardball if they don't immediately dole out cash, Sullivan said.
"When Allstate says, 'We are going to crack down on the honeypot,' the trial lawyers get mad," he said.
Allstate's lawyers have said Hager and her attorneys are motivated by greed.
"Their claim for injunctive relief is just a setup to get the money," attorney Mindy Barfield said last year.
Indeed, the suit could turn the couple who ran a Madison County pest control business into multimillionaires. Lawyers want $6 million for Hager alone.

In addition to Kaplan, Hager is represented by two big-name lawyers: Golden of Lexington, and Ronald Parry of Covington.

In 2004, Golden won a $28 million jury verdict against Cincinnati Insurance Co., which was accused of delaying an insurance payment for a Scott County man and misrepresenting the amount of coverage available. The case is on appeal.

Robert Altman, an Atlanta attorney, said he's spoken to Hager's attorneys about filing a class-action suit in Georgia, raising the question of whether they are considering lawsuits in other states.

Kaplan declined to comment.
As Allstate is quick to note, its claims process has been upheld in courts across the nation. It pointed to eight decisions and one jury verdict in particular.

"Allstate believes that these court decisions, rendered after challenges to CCPR were litigated on the merits, are more telling than unfounded and unproven accusations," Allstate officials said in a written statement.

Hager's case, in contrast to many lawsuits challenging CCPR, attacks only how Allstate handles soft-tissue claims.
Only two class-action lawsuits challenging Allstate's claims-handling have been allowed to proceed in other states, the company said. No lawsuit has been certified at the national level.

But Kaplan said the McKinsey documents could turn the tide in the Kentucky case.
'Good hands' and 'boxing gloves'
In 1992, Allstate hired McKinsey to redesign its claims-handling procedures. During a five-year period, McKinsey teams made PowerPoint presentations on the findings and progress of the project to management, Berardinelli said.

The resulting slide shows have been obtained by attorneys in several cases under protective orders. They have been introduced as evidence in at least one bad-faith insurance lawsuit, which resulted in a hung jury, said Montana attorney Rick Anderson, who represented the plaintiff.

A federal judge returned the documents to Allstate after the February trial in that case, making them no longer publicly available. The case was settled confidentially, Anderson said.

In New Mexico, Berardinelli obtained the documents in a bad-faith lawsuit, but, unlike other plaintiffs' attorneys, he refused to consent to a protective order.

A Santa Fe judge ruled the documents are not confidential trade secrets, as Allstate contends, but ordered Berardinelli to treat them as such while the insurer appealed that ruling.

Berardinelli hired paralegals to take notes on the materials, which had stripes marked "confidential" that prevented them from being photocopied. In all, Berardinelli and his staff made 300 pages of notes, which were filed in the Santa Fe court.

After the New Mexico Supreme Court denied Allstate's two-year appeal, Berardinelli returned the McKinsey documents, expecting to receive clean copies that could be duplicated.

Allstate balked, forcing the judge to take the rare step of entering a default judgment finding the insurance company liable, a ruling that is now under appeal.

In Hager's case, Judge Clark ruled in 2001 that the documents are not trade secrets. Allstate immediately asked him to reconsider. Kaplan said he agreed to treat the McKinsey documents as confidential until trial to keep his case moving along.

Berardinelli parlayed his notes into a book, From Good Hands to Boxing Gloves, which sells to lawyers for $295.
In great detail, the slides show how shareholders could profit from the new way of handling claims, according to Berardinelli's notes. Based on public financial reports, Berardinelli estimates that Allstate has made at least $15 billion from CCPR by fighting minor claims, which make up the bulk of payouts.

The company called the allegation outrageous.
Berardinelli likens it to a factory that underfills every can of peas. Customers buy a can expecting to get 10 ounces of peas, but only get 8.

That's not how insurance is supposed to work, Berardinelli said. Insurance companies are legally and ethically required to make a fair offer, without regard to the bottom line.

Allstate turns that concept on its head, turning claims-handling into a profit center, he said. And trial lawyers say other insurance companies have adopted similar hardball tactics.

"The ethics of insurance is that you're supposed to pay a claim fairly," said Altman, the Atlanta attorney. "McKinsey & Company went into all these companies and said, 'You guys are being fooled because claims are an area where you can make a profit.'"



Lauren B. Goode
Communications Director
Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers

395 E. Broad Street, Suite 200
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Phone: (614) 341-6800
Fax: (614) 341-6810
laureng@oatlaw.org
www.oatlaw.org




www.castellilaw.com">

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Persona Injury Asbestos News

Asbestos News
Asbestos Bill Raises Impossible Hurdles for Victims
The Specter-Leahy bill asks asbestos victims to bear the risk of an inadequately funded, unfairly structured and untested new compensation program that is not even a "no fault" system. In fact, victims must surpass huge new hurdles to prove their asbestos exposure and that it is the cause of their illness. Based on the current version of the bill, it will be impossible for them to do so.
Worst 10 Hurdles Are:
Victims who have already been through the legal system and have pending claims would have their settlements thrown out under this bill. They would be forced to get back in line to wait for a new bureaucracy to be set up before they could get any compensation or help with medical bills.
Even victims dying of mesothelioma, which typically kills within a year, would have their cases thrown out of court and be forced to wait nine months. Many will die while waiting for their claims to be heard.
Because even victims with pending settlements would be forced into the fund, the asbestos fund will start with a 500,000 case backlog that cannot be timely processed.
Victims must prove at least five years of "substantial occupational exposure" and document the extent, duration, and intensity of the exposure in order to be compensated. This will be impossible for most victims because the records simply don't exist. Employers were not required to monitor exposures before the mid-70s and many employers failed to do so even after OSHA required such monitoring. Employees have no right under the bill to access exposure information from their former employers, some of which no longer exist.
The experience of past government-run compensation programs indicates this one is doomed to fail victims too. A new study of the Black Lung Program, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act and the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act shows all funds dramatically underestimated potential claims, leading to delays in compensation and the need for taxpayer dollars. ["Commentary on the Creation of a Fund for Victims of Asbestos Caused Diseases," by Professor Peter S. Barth]
There is special compensation in the bill for victims in Libby, Montana, but other victims of community asbestos exposure—such as families in hundreds of communities all over the country that received asbestos shipments from Libby—are shut out completely and would be ineligible for compensation.
Many people who were exposed to asbestos in the World Trade Center collapse on 9/11—would be ineligible for compensation.
The vast majority of victims poisoned by non-occupational exposure would be ineligible for compensation.
Victims who can prove a claim will have to wait months or years for the fund to start paying compensation. The bill gives the fund administrator three to four years to pay a claim after it has been approved, with exceptions for some mesothelioma cases.
If the fund is about to run out of money, there is no automatic sunset provision that would allow asbestos victims to return to the legal system. Instead the administrator can simply change the medical criteria or reduce benefits for victims—in essence changing the rules in the middle of the game—rather than allow victims to return to court.
These hurdles are why every major asbestos victims group opposes the bill, including the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the Committee to Protect Mesothelioma Victims, the White Lung Asbestos Information Center, the White Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and 9/11 Environmental Action.
July 2005

Association of Trial Lawyers of America • The Leonard M. Ring Law CenterContact Us © 2005 ATLA Terms and Conditions of Use Privacy Statement reprinted from aboce source

for further contact http://www.castellilaw.com

1/08/2006 Edit Cincinnati Personal Injury Attorney More Information On Tort

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

TRIAL LAWYERS STAND UP AND FIGHT

Court Blasts Home Depot for Attempting to "Escape the Results of Its Own Carelessness"



California businessman Alan R. Sporn discovered that something was wrong with his credit history when he was rejected for a low-interest loan to re-finance his home. When he looked into the problem, Alan discovered that Home Depot was accessing his credit report monthly and the "inquiries" on his credit report had driven down his FICA score.




Alan's Social Security number had been stolen and was being fraudulently used by someone in Virginia to apply for store credit at Home Depot. Verbally and in writing, Alan told Home Depot someone in Virginia had stolen his identity, and asked the company to stop accessing his credit report. Home Depot ignored Alan for nearly two years, refused to stop the wrongful use of his credit and damage to his credit rating, and even refused to give Alan the information he needed to identify the person who had stolen his identity.




After two years of no response, Alan was forced to file a lawsuit against Home Depot. Home Depot never showed up for any of the court proceedings. A jury awarded, and the court upheld, compensation for Alan for the financial damage done to him by Home Depot.




Home Depot's disregard for Mr. Sporn gets worse. The company never responded to the verdict, so half a year later Alan's attorney was forced to serve the bank that handled Home Depot's payroll with the financial judgment. This got Home Depot's attention – the company's defense lawyers filed an appeal against the verdict and even went as far as to accuse Alan of being underhanded in his dealings with the giant company.



The appeals court upheld the judgment against Home Depot and wrote, "an obvious gap appears in the evidence... there is no statement that the [court papers sent to Home Depot] were lost, stolen, forwarded to the wrong person, or eaten by the dog."


Home Depot's "apparent belief that they can persuade this court to somehow make up for the consequences of their conduct by the excessive use of noxious characterizations to describe the conduct of the plaintiff and his lawyer is mistaken and offensive," the court continued. The court deemed Home Depot's filing "frivolous" and awarded sanctions against Home Depot and in favor of the plaintiff.

In the Stores
Home Depot has also been held accountable by the civil justice system for its practice of stacking merchandise too high on store shelves – heavy merchandise has fallen, killing and injuring customers. In addition, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission brought and won a case against Home Depot for systematically discriminating against its female employees.

Because the civil justice system allows consumers to hold corporations like Home Depot accountable for putting profits before safety, it isn't any surprise that Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli is one of the most outspoken proponents of "tort reform" and a major funder of the campaign to strip Americans of the constitutional right to hold wrongdoers accountable.

By the Numbers
57.7 million: Number of individuals whose personal information was potentially compromised by security breaches in 2005.
[Source: Identity Theft Resource Center]

600: The number of hours an identity theft victim will spend trying to recover from the crime.
[Source: Identity Theft Resource Center]

$1,400: Average out-of-pocket expenses per identity theft victim.
[Source: Identity Theft Resource Center]

reprinted from atla by anthony castelli cincinnati car accident personal injury attorney

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Personal Injury Car Accident News

Information from Cincinnati Personal Injury And Car Accident Attorney


A $9 Safety Improvement Could Have Saved the Anderson Family from Horrific Burns





On Christmas Eve, 1993, Patricia Anderson drove her four children, ages six to 15, home from church services in their Chevy Malibu. As Ms. Anderson pulled up to a red light they were rear-ended by another car. The front of the other car was forced partially underneath her rear bumper and punctured her fuel tank in several places. The leaking fuel ignited, and the car burst into flames with the force of 108 sticks of dynamite.




Patricia and her children suffered severe and debilitating burns. Eight-year-old Kiontra was burned when, after escaping, she ran back to the car to help get her younger sister out. Three of Anderson's four children were burned over 60 percent of their bodies.



Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on product safety that focused partly on the Chevy Malibu case as an example of egregious corporate misconduct.




What makes this story even more tragic is that the injuries suffered were wholly preventable. General Motors knew for several decades that the placement of the fuel tank in the Malibu made the car unreasonably dangerous and at risk of exploding in the event of a rear collision.




Yet instead of putting the safety of families like the Andersons first, GM made a conscious decision to market a product they knew would kill people.




In an example of Pinto math, an internal GM memo showed that the company estimated that deaths resulting from post-collision fuel-tank fires cost General Motors $2.40 per car. This calculation was based on an estimate that each life "has a value of $200,000." Internal memos also showed that the company had developed an improved design that would do a better job of protecting the gas tank in collisions. Improving the design would cost the company $8.59 per car. Executives decided not to do so.





In 1999, a jury found that General Motors Corp., in an effort to cut costs and increase profits, knowingly endangered the lives of their customers and ordered the company to provide compensation for the horrific burns to the Anderson family.







On The Hill

Last Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on proposed criminal sanctions for corporate executives who deliberately endanger American lives by knowingly putting a defective product on the market. Witnesses at the hearing discussed both the exploding fuel tanks in the Chevy Malibu and the Guidant heart defibrillator as tragic examples of what happens when corporate executives place profits before human life.



By the Numbers

$8.59:Amount that GM estimated it would cost to improve the fuel tank design, per car.
[Source: Respondent's Brief, CA Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate District, Case No. B135147]

$4 billion: Amount GM spends yearly on advertising.
[Source: Trial Testimony]

500: Number of fatalities GM estimated would occur every year because of post-collision fuel tank fires.
[Source: Internal GM Document (Ivey Memo)]

5 million: Number of GM vehicles with the dangerous fuel tank that are still on the road, including the Malibu, Oldsmobile Cutlass, Pontiac Grand Am and El Camino.
[Source: Trial Testimony]

Friday, March 3, 2006

Workers' Comp Encourages Settlements

What Ohio Workers Compensation Claimants Should Know


In a so called new approach to claims management, the Ohio bureau of workers compensation commision is urging employers and workers who are back on the job to settle cases instead of letting them hang on.
The bureau has been sending letters to employers and claimants regarding this. However this is nothing new, but has been little known unless you were knowledgeable about your rights or had a lawyer represnting you.

A monetary settlement is only made by agreement of the employer, claimant and bureau of workers compensation. If one of the parties does not agree there can be no settlement. Moreover you have no right to sue for a monetary workers compensation settlement.

The employee must know all of his rights and what kind of compensation he is entitled before he can intelligently assess whether a settlement is fair. Moreover the employer or the bureau is going to try to settle for as little as they can.

I suggest you seek the services of an attorney certified as a specialist in Ohio workers compensation law to advise and negotiate a settlement. Most attorneys will charge a percentage of the amount they are able to recover for you. This percentage can vary from attorney to attorney.

I will be glad to consult with any claimant and determine what would be a fair setttlement and negotiate it for a percentage of the recovery or if you wish I wil charge you an hourly rate to work for a fair settlement if it is appropriate under the circumstances.

There are ways to add value to the settlement and to get an unwilling employer to agree to a settlement.

For more info or to discuss your case you can call Anthony Castelli an attorney certified as a specialist by the OSBA in Ohio workers compensation law at 1-800-447-6549 or go to his web site http://www.castellilaw.com/Workers-Compensation.html

Monday, February 27, 2006

Contingent Fee personal injury attorney fee contract revisited

There are many contracts that can be entered into with a lawyer. A lawyer is primarily under a duty to charge a reasonable fee and one that is not excessive. The following is reprinted for your information,regarding a contingency fee contract. In Ohio providing the following statement in writing is not required although some of the following statements may be mandatory requirements.

It is an aspirational statement made by only by some that the below statements be required in writing. In Ohio the fee agreement must be in writing and a final disbursement should also be in writing and signed by client and attorney.

Before you, the prospective client, arrange a
contingent fee agreement with a lawyer, you should understand this statement of your rights as a client.

1. There is no legal requirement that a lawyer charge a client a set fee or a percentage of money recovered in a case. You, the client, have the right to talk with your lawyer about the proposed fee and to bargain about the rate or percentage as in any other contract. If you do not reach an agreement, you may talk with other lawyers. Any contingent fee contract must be in writing.
2. In this jurisdiction, the maximum percentage fee that may be charged is _______%. (In Ohio there is no maximum fee.) Your lawyer must charge you a reasonable fee. The percentage fee charged to you should reflect the likelihood of winning, how much money is likely to be rewarded and collected, and how much work and expense the lawyer is likely to put into the case. Your lawyer’s expertise and the complexity of the case are also relevant.

3. Your lawyer should take all the following factors into account in evaluating your case and should discuss each factor with you, giving his or her best good faith evaluation:
· The likelihood of success
· The likely amount of recovery, if the case succeeds
· The possibility of an award of punitive damages — damages awarded because the injury was so avoidable or despicable — or damages that are multiplied by state statute, and how that will affect the fee
· The attitude and prior practices of the other side with respect to settlement
· The likelihood of collecting any judgment
· The availability of alternative dispute resolution
· The amount of time that a lawyer is likely to spend on the case
· The likely range of the fee if the matter’s handled on a non-contingency basis
· The client’s ability and willingness to pay a non-contingency fee
· The percentage of any recovery that the lawyer would receive as a contingency fee and whether that percentage is fixed or on a sliding scale (depending, for example, on whether a settlement is reached before a complaint is filed, or a trial is held or an appeal is needed)
· How expenses of the litigation will be handled.
4. You, the client, have the right to know in advance how you will need to pay the expenses and the legal fees at the end of the case.

5. You, the client, have the right to receive and approve a closing statement at the end of the case before you pay any money. The statement must list all of the financial details of the entire case, including the amount recovered, all expenses, and a precise statement of your lawyer’s fee.

6. You, the client, have the right to ask your lawyer at reasonable intervals how the case is progressing and to have these questions answered to the best of your lawyer’s ability.

7. You, the client, have the right to make the final decision regarding settlement of a case.

8. If at any time you, the client, believe that your lawyer has charged an excessive or illegal fee, you have the right to report the matter to the agency that oversees the practice and behavior all lawyers in this state. You can reach the agency at

Many attorneys would be glad to charge an hourly rate. That way they know they will get paid and in a timely fashion. The point is that ultimately your decision to hire a lawyer and the kind of fee you want to pay your lawyer is a matter of choice. It should be your educated choice.

I will be glad to discuss with you how I will charge you and it will be in wtiting if we agree to work together.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Personal Injury Attorney Contingency Fees

CONTINGENCY FEES WHAT ARE THEY

The words contingency fee are not always easily understood. It means the there is no fee owed unless an event occurs (the contingency). In personal injury cases this means the recovery of money, either by settlement or verdict. No fee is paid until money is recovered.

This type of fee opens the doors to the court house for the average person. You might not be able to afford a fee of $150 to $300 per hour with no guarantee of the outcome. But a contingency fee allows you to hie an attorney and only pay him for results.

Expenses of law claims are separate. If the attorney is willing to advance expenses for medical reports, records, depositions, they are recoverable, either based on a recovery, or whether or not there is a recovery. This is a matter for you to discuss with your attorney.

Some laywers are unwilling to advance their own money. I generally will advance litigation expenses up to a point, but if a client wants to gamble on trying the case when there
is a fair offer on the table then I expect them to invest their own money.

All lawyers do not charge the same fee. Although 1/3 of the gross recovery is common, some lawyers will charge more, some lawyers will charge less.

In Ohio the contract must be in writing and you should reieve a copy.

f you have any questions regarding attorneys fees or my fees in particular, feel free to call me 621-2345 or go to my web site www.castellilaw.com

Friday, January 20, 2006

EXPLODING THE MYTH OF THE LAW SUIT CRISIS OR WHY TORT REFORM IS NOT NECESSARY

This article explores and explodes the myth of the necessity for tort reform regarding personal injury claims.

Cincinnati, Ohio (Press Release via ( http:www.castellilaw.com )
January 29,2006 -- Greater Cincinnati personal injury and accident attorney Anthony Castelli exposes the myths behind lawsuit reform.

Its fashionable in some circles to proclaim that legions of lawyers are ruining our country by bringing frivolous lawsuits that are bankrupting business and clogging the courts.

But the truth is it just is not so. In 2004 thee attorney general of the United States released statistics showing that in the 75 largest counties civil trials dropped by 47% from 1992 to 2001.

In trials in which the plaintiff was succesful the median award shrank from $65,000.00 to $37,000.00 Punitive damages were only awarded 6% of the time and the median award was only $50,000.00

The budget office also found that insurance took in less money from investments so they charged higher premiums.

With regard to malpractice insurance a study showed that over the last 5 years the amount major malpractice insurers collected in premiums more than doubled, while their claim payouts were essentially flat.

Some malpractice insurers substantially increased premiums while claim payments and projected payments fell.

They accumulated record amounts of surplus. They actually increased their premiums by 21 times the increase in their claim payouts. This amounted to three times as much in premiums taken in as they paid out. So the insurance companies have no crisis. If their is a crisis its caused by insurance companies gouging doctors.

The reality is foreign corporations are able to do business in America. Why aren't they run out by high verdicts. The only companies ever put out of business deserved to go because the products they were making were killing people. This number is miniscule compared to the number of foreign and domestic businesses flourishing.

As for caps on damages that only puts the catastophically injured on welfare and on the taxpayer , when giant corporations have ample funds to cover the injuries they cause.

So when the topic comes up , don't be fooled again.

by Anthony Castelli Greater Cincinnati personal injury Attorney htpp://www.castellilaw.com

Sunday, January 8, 2006

Will your Car Insurance Cover you for personal Injury

Many people do not realize that the insurance coverage they carry is not enough. In the state of Ohio minimum limits are $12,500 per person and $25,000. per accident. However if you cause an accident that causes serious injury to another such as a herniated disc in a person's neck or back you could be justifiably faced with a verdict in excess of $100,000. That is why I recommend, at a minimum, a single limits policy of at least $300,000.
You should also ask your insurer to provide you uninsured/underinsured coverage with the same limits. That covers you for your injuries if an uninsured or minimally insured driver injures you.
For more info you can also go to my other cincinnati personal injury attorney blog at http://www.cincinnatiohiopersonalinjurylawyer.blogspot.com