The ruling changes what is called the collateral source rule and allows claimants/plaintiffs to claim only the amount actually paid for medical care, rather than the full amount billed. This skews the calculation in favor of the responsible party.

Health insurance companies typically negotiate lower rates with healthcare providers. For injured Missourians with health insurance, the amount paid for their care is typically lower than the market rate, and will vary based on their health insurance provider.

Allowing injured Missourians to claim only the amount actually paid for their medical bills gives the defendant—the person or company that caused an accident—the benefit of the health insurance the injured party paid for. In essence, it treats those with insurance worse than those without it. Not only is this intrinsically unfair, it ignores a longstanding common law principle under which a defendant cannot reduce their liability by claiming that another entity has already paid for part or all of the injuries (“collateral source” rule).

The main problem is the defendant gets the benefit of the injured person’s foresight to obtain health insurance and, more to the point, the defendant receives the benefit of the injured person’s willingness to work, since people typically have health insurance through work as part of their pay package. Contrast that with the person who has no health insurance and gets charged retail. They get to use that entire charge for their case. If they choose not to work or otherwise choose not to have health insurance, they actually have an advantage with their claim. They are treated better than the person who has health insurance.

The next question is, why does one class of person (people with health insurance, which as a society we are trying to encourage) get treated differently (to their disadvantage) than the person who has no health insurance (which we as a society are trying to discourage)? This calls for a Constitutional Equal Protection argument challenging the constitutionality of the statute, as the government is taking something away from a certain class of injured people (those with insurance) and treating them differently than another class of injured people (people without insurance). Unfortunately, the Courts have traditionally upheld this type of legislation.

The new law may violate the Missouri Constitution in another way as well, as it allows Missouri to sidestep the collateral source rule and dictate the value of certain elements of an injured person’s damages instead of allowing a jury to decide that, thus interfering with the complete right to trial.

The State will argue they have a rational basis for doing this in order to the reduce plaintiff’s awards. But that seems to only line insurance company pockets at the expense of injured Missourians. When is the last time your insurance company reduced premiums?

This ruling has already been approved by the Missouri legislature and signed by Gov. Greitens. It will apply to injuries that occur on or after the effective date of Aug. 28, 2017, so our current clients are not impacted.

At this point, the only recourse Missourians have is to hire a law firm that understands and is prepared to attempt to either avoid or minimize the impact this law has upon your rights. And of course, remember this at the voting booth. See how your state representative and senator voted on Senate Bill 31 here.

While truck drivers are usually well-trained to deal with most situations, they are also usually facing a deadline. Federal guidelines have been put in place to help keep commercial truck drivers from working too many hours straight. Before these regulations were put in place, many truck drivers would be encouraged to pull all-nighters, relying on coffee and other stimulants to keep awake.

Despite the limits on the amount of time truck drivers can drive, approximately 13% of truck drivers were fatigued at the time of their crash, according to a Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCSS). Fatigue is defined as extreme tiredness, usually resulting from mental or physical exertion. During the course of their duty, a truck driver must be on high alert, looking for danger. Further, operating an extremely large and heavy vehicle while confronted with smaller vehicles on the roadway can be quite a challenge. This kind of constant attention is exhausting, even during a shorter shift.

Drowsy driving can be dangerous, even for smaller vehicles. However, because trucks are so enormous and can crash with tremendous force, their collisions tend to have a higher death rate, especially when smaller cars are involved in the collision.

The injuries that result from truck accidents can also be extreme. For example, big rig accidents can often lead to permanent brain damage, severe spinal cord injuries, or even wrongful death. These catastrophic injuries can not only take years of surgery and rehabilitation, but they might result in a permanent disability that could prevent people from holding a regular job. Quadriplegia, for example, can cost the average 25 year old person more than $2 million in medical bills, rehabilitation costs, house remodeling, and lost wages over the course of his or her lifetime.

If you’ve been injured by a drowsy or fatigued truck driver, don’t hesitate to call us. Adler & Manson has more than sixty-five years of collective legal experience in personal injury law to offer your case. We have been assisting the victims of negligence for years and have helped many people obtain the compensation they deserve. Let us put our skills and legal knowledge to work on your behalf. Call our experienced Kansas City truck accident attorneys today.

Contact us at (816) 333-0400 or fill out our online form to schedule a free case consultation with us.

Rep. Joe Don McGaugh’s collateral source rule bill and Rep. Kevin Corlew’s expert witness standard bill both passed through the state’s House of Representatives early this month. This is fast progress on an issue that Governor Greitens has taken aim at both throughout his campaign and early in his tenure.

Many conservative politicians have stated that the legal landscape in Missouri has made operations difficult for businesses and insurance companies, ultimately leading to extremely prohibitive costs and businesses either being unable to get off the ground or closing their doors due to insurance costs or other factors. However, opponents of tort reform are concerned that more tort reform would give big businesses with extensive resources at their disposal an increased advantage against the average citizen when the advantages are already significant.

Assistant Minority Floor Leader Gina Mitten stated: “I’m opposed to anything that shuts the courthouse doors to all Missourians. Folks deserve access to our justice system and both of these bills do nothing other than to try to deny that access to my constituents and the constituents of every other person of this body.”

McGaugh’s bill limits the evidence the jury can see with regard to economic damages, including medical bills, medication, treatments, future treatments, and more for automobile accidents, truck accidents, and other injury cases.

Rep. McGaugh says that his bill is designed to prevent plaintiffs from earning a windfall on a case. However, this could put Missouri on a slippery slope towards its neighbor, Kansas, particularly in terms of even lower maximum recoveries allowed under the law (“caps”). Many lay people do not realize that a judge can reduce the amount awarded by the jury if the judge feels the amount was too high under the circumstances. This is called “remittitur.” The judge who heard the evidence in the case is in a far better position to decide if an award is too high. This is far more equitable than an “across the board” cap for even the most catastrophic injury.

If you are injured from an auto accident, truck accident, a defective product, or other matter, facing a jury and large legal team of an insurance company can be a daunting task. At Adler & Manson, we are not afraid to take on big insurance companies. We can fight to put the law on your side and help you obtain the compensation you deserve for your injuries. As Kansas City personal injury attorneys, we are well-versed in the laws and regulations regarding injury claims, and work diligently and tirelessly to gather all of the evidence in your case to get you the financial relief you need.

Start discussing your case with an attorney today; call Adler & Manson at 816-333-0400 and request a free initial consultation!

However, the amount you are awarded may be bound by a “cap,” or a legally-mandated maximum that you are allowed to receive. Many people support tort reform such as this until they or a loved one is injured and they realize how dreadful caps can be. Interestingly, the corporations and insurance companies lobbying for tort reform do not seek to limit the amount they can recover should they be wronged.

While Missouri has no such caps (except for medical-malpractice wrongful death suits), Kansas law has caps on just about every type of personal injury case, including automobile and truck accidents. Since you can be bound by the law in the state in which you were injured, the value of your claim can vary greatly depending upon where you were hurt.

Arbitrary Damage “Caps” Explained

There are two main types of damages in injury cases. For example, if you are injured in a car or truck accident or by a defective product, your recovery may be severely limited by a cap (maximum recovery). The first type of damage is known as “economic damages.” These are your past and future medical bills and lost wages. Your other damages, otherwise known as “non-economic damages,” are designed to compensate an accident victim for the suffering, pain, and permanent injury sustained.

In both Kansas and Missouri, the economic damages are not capped in any way—if you sustain $1,000,000 dollars in medical bills, you can claim them as damages in your case. However, Kansas caps the non-economic damages to $300,000 per case.

This is particularly unjust to victims of catastrophic injuries. Amputees or those who become paralyzed as a result of their injuries may have experienced a dramatic change in their lifestyle and suffer severe mental trauma, pain, and suffering as a result of this negligence. In this instance, the $300,000 cap may not be suitable for their losses. In situations such as these, the cap laws dramatically favor those who were at fault while failing to allow the victim to be adequately compensated.

Many lay people do not realize that a judge can reduce the amount awarded by the jury if the judge feels the amount was too high under the circumstances. This is called remittitur. The judge who heard the evidence in the case is in a far better position to decide if an award is too high. This is far more equitable than an “across the board” cap for even the most catastrophic injury.

If you have suffered from a serious injury while on the job, Adler & Manson may be able to assist you. Our Kansas City personal injury attorneys have served those injured in both Missouri and Kansas for decades, combining to more than 65 years of legal practice experience. If you have been a victim of negligence that has resulted in an injury, trust your case to our firm and give yourself the best chance to recover the compensation you deserve for your medical bills and other harm inflicted.

To review your case with one of our skilled attorneys, call Adler & Manson today at 816.216.6214.

As FOX News reports, 69-year-old Diana Birch lost a kidney and must now use walking sticks to walk following her rectal surgery. She has filed suit against Britain’s National Health Services, which provided the surgery and ultimately can hold the doctor’s responsible accountable.

“Diana went to the hospital for corrective surgery and left with a life-changing injury from which she will never recover,” Birch’s lawyer told The Mirror. “As a result of her injury, her mobility has been significantly diminished and she had to sell her home as she could no longer cope with the stairs. She has been unable to return to work as director of a charity and as an expert witness in child abuse cases.”

“This Has Changed My Life Completely”

It’s been three years since the surgery and Birch, who counted travel, charity work, dancing, and judo among her hobbies, told the UK press that she is still is coming to grips with what has happened to her. “This has changed my life completely,” she told The Mirror, “and three years later I am still trying to come to terms with what has happened to me and what could have been done to prevent it or correct it before it was too late.”

Fortunately, it looks like the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust has little grounds to stand on to dispute Birch’s claims. An investigation into her procedure found that surgeons had done accidental damage to her femoral nerve after they entered the wrong part of her body. The Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust has already provided Birch some compensation for rehabilitation, but her new suit seeks damages that will address future treatment and expenses.

If you or a loved one has been hurt by a medical professional, then we invite you to contact us at Adler & Manson today. Our trusted team of Kansas City medical malpractice and personal injury attorneys not only have decades of experience but have also recovered more than $80 million for our clients.

No matter what the nature of your malpractice claim is, we’re here to help you review your options. Contact us today to speak with our team.

As the Associated Press reports, the Missouri justices deemed that caps on non-economic recoveries (such as pain and suffering) do not violate the constitutional rights of plaintiffs. The case at hand was a plaintiff’s lawsuit claiming the death of a loved due to a medical procedure. The jury awarded the plaintiff $9 million in that case but, due to state law, the plaintiff could only recover $350K.

While there have been occasional cases in which the state Supreme Court lifted the cap for medical malpractice suits, this recent ruling is likely to continue to severely limit the legal ability of bereaved people desiring justice. Politicians believe that these caps attract businesses, but rarely address how they inhibit the relief our courts can provide their constituents who are in mourning.

“Limiting” Pain & Suffering

It’s always regretful to hear about a development like this that further erodes the recovery to those harmed. The deck is already stacked in favor of the “big guy.” Who are the real winners here? The prospective businesses looking to put down roots in Missouri, and the billion dollar insurance companies that cover them! By giving these corporations and insurance providers more protection, we’re telling the public that the effects of a sudden loss will not be fairly and impartially assessed on a case by case basis. We must recall that if a jury awards a grossly large and unfair amount, the trial judge, who heard the facts of this specific case, can reduce the award to a fair amount. That seems far more equitable than a “one size fits all” mandate imposed in the form of a cap. Most people embrace tort reform such as this until they are the injured party, and then they are shocked at the limitations that have been imposed arbitrarily. At Adler & Manson, we fight to ensure that our clients’ voices are compellingly heard before the law and that maximum recovery is aggressively pursued. If you have lost a loved one due to another party’s negligence, then our trusted and experienced Kansas City personal injury attorneys are ready to hear your story.

It still can be possible to recover maximum relief. Call our offices today to start exploring your options.

As a result, we have expanded our reach and impact across the web by being available on a wide variety of social platforms. Not only can you communicate with us on these platforms, but you can also look to these platforms for information and firm news as it becomes available.

Don’t hesitate to contact our firm for a free case evaluation or visit our social platforms today:

• Google+
• Avvo
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Twitter
• Yelp
• YouTube
• FavStar
• Pinterest
• Scoop.it
• Storify
• Look Up Page
• Muck Rack
• AboutMe
• BlogSpot
• Flickr
• WordPress
• Tumblr

This is important: do not provide authorization.

“Why?” you might ask. “It’s my own insurance company.” That may be true, but there’s nothing certain about car accidents and insurance benefits until all claims are resolved. Technically, the at-fault driver’s insurance will provide compensation for medical treatment and car repairs, but if there’s no clear fault assigned, both drivers’ insurance companies will limit their liability as much as possible.

That’s where your medical records come in. Here’s the key thing to remember about medical authorization releases: unless otherwise stated, they provide total access to your medical history. If you have any part of your medical history that insurance companies could use to argue against you, then your claim may be devalued and you’ll lose your ability to collect all of your benefits.

For example, if you suffered a neck injury in your crash, that could result in substantial compensation for you: physical therapy, chiropractic care, rehabilitative items like neck supports, etc. However, if your insurance company finds that you had a neck sprain a year or two prior to your accident, even if it doesn’t factor into the crash, they may use the information to lower your benefits.

HOW HAVING AN ATTORNEY CAN HELP YOU

It is possible to provide a partial release that only provides adjusters with the records that have to do with your car accident and nothing more. However, doing so requires an understanding of the medical records and insurance systems. Otherwise, you run the risk of opening yourself up to a loss of privacy regarding your medical history.

That’s why turning to a car accident lawyer in Kansas City is so vital for our clients—we protect their rights against insurance companies before a trial case becomes a possibility. By protecting your privacy early in the process, we can keep your claim as strong as possible, whether or not you pursue compensation in court.

If you’ve been in a car accident recently and you want to make sure your rights are protected, contact Adler & Manson today. We have more than 65 years of combined experience fighting for Kansas City residents, and we’ve secured more than $80 million for our injured clients. Call (816) 333-0400 so we can speak in a free legal consultation to discuss your options and begin work on your behalf.

Essure is a small coil that is inserted in the fallopian tubes of the patient. As scar tissue forms around the coil, it blocks sperm from reaching the egg. However, many patients have reported a number of severe effects of the device—which has shown it is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.

Adverse effects linked to Essure include:

• Severe pain
• Bleeding
• Miscarriages
• Stillbirths
• Pronounced pregnancy complications

“Life-Threatening Risks”

According to the FDA, the black box label is meant to “call attention to serious or life-threatening risks” associated with the product.” The agency has also ordered Bayer to conduct a new study to “determine what, if any, further actions related to Essure are needed to protect public health.” The plans of that three-year study are due to the FDA by the end of this month.

Bayer has also responded to the black box label order, saying: “Essure is an important permanent birth control option with a positive benefit-risk profile. Bayer will continue to work closely with the FDA to support the continued safe, effective and appropriate use of Essure.”

Previously, Bayer claimed that Essure was 99% effective and is blaming “patient error” for unintended pregnancies. The black box label—which will have language that is still being informed by patient and corporate feedback—will start to appear on the Essure packaging at the end of April 2016.

If you or a loved one has suffered adverse effects due to the Essure device, then you may have grounds to seek compensation. Regulators are still trying to determine whether Bayer did their diligence on determining the risks associated with their product before putting it on the market—and their insistence that pregnancies have been caused by patient error is dismissive of the thousands of women that have suffered due to their product.

At Adler & Manson, our experienced Kansas City lawyers know that big companies like Bayer like to deflect blame and protect their bottom lines. Our dedicated advocates are ready to hear your Essure story and, if appropriate, start taking aggressive steps toward helping you recover the compensation you are entitled to.

Start exploring your options by calling us at (816) 333-0400 today.

No matter what type of accident occurs, there will always be a legal side to the case that may or may not require the people involved to get an attorney to help them through the processes that they will be dealing with going forward.

For example, it may not even be a lawsuit or a court date that a car accident victim is dealing with. Instead, it could be an insurance company that is treating them unfairly. Another example is the evidence that a car accident leaves. Many people may not know what they are supposed to look for or what constitutes “evidence” in a civil case. A lawyer can be incredibly helpful in these regards, and many, many more.

No matter what side of the Kansas-Missouri line you live on, Adler & Manson is the law firm to know if you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident. We have experience with all types of motor vehicle cases, and we will work hard for you to ensure that your rights are protected.