December 15, 2009

Three tell signs you are being manuipulated!

We are a culture of compromise. We give in to some things and take in others, trying to remain agreeable and fair. As an example, my daughter wanted to wear shorts today to school, (50 degrees outside). My instincts told me that this was going to be trouble from the beginning. If I ask her to change, I am dictating what she can wear and controlling her decisions. If I say nothing, I will catch the wrath of her mother, and if I try to negotiate, I will expend a huge amount of time.

Although this is a simple example, we all have to negotiate, accept, give and take. The more important that a point of contention is to us, the harder we must apply ourselves. Unfortunately, there are some people that do not easily give, and always take. Have you ever been manipulated and you did not realize it was happening? Here are several tactics that people use to manipulate you into agreeing with their proposal. What does this have to do with law? Stay tuned.

Trigger one: The hard noser

A hard nosed tactic is to give little or nothing without a fight. In short, this person or attribute (sometimes interchangeable) will show no weakness. It is their way or the highway. This tactic works well for lawyers in some cases. The opposition simply does not want to put in the effort, or pay the cost, to negotiate a fair compromise and gives up on seemingly unimportant details, only to find they were short changed later. My daughter uses this tactic.

How do you deal with this attorney, person or child? Patience is the absolute key. I must be committed to the process or I will not get the person to budge. This person really hates to wait, wants to skip over details and does not want to listen to your thoughts because they feel they are losing control of the process. That is exactly what you want them to feel. Eventually, a fair and thorough compromise will be reached but you must be willing to patiently work through the process. Do not agree to anything until you both agree to everything. Do not let them parse out little agreements without discussing all points on the table. It really works.

Trigger two: Flattery is king.

People who want to persuade you to agree to their way of thinking often are identified by efforts to build your image or compliment your ego. We all recognize the movie clip where the wife wants to convince the husband of his prowess when in truth she wants to buy something. Lawyers try this tactic as well. Flattery can be genuine, but if you see that it is gushing out over little things, and it seems out of place, rest assured it is. My daughter will try flattery from time to time. Gee dad I really like to shop with you, you are so much fun! I am an in and out guy and spend no time shopping. Her flattery is disingenuous and eventually her desire surfaces. The effort is designed to make you feel good, because when you feel good, you are more likely to want to keep that feeling, by continuing the road to conflict avoidance.

So how do you deal with flattery? Simply accept it, keep it, enjoy it, and to keep that good feeling going. When the request comes your way stay in the moment, while saying what you want. Oh darling daughter, I don’t think we can buy that today for you, but maybe next time. Your positive attitude will throw them off. If they really want to take it up a notch, they will be the ones that move to a different strategy. A lawyer who tries to get something with flattery quickly realizes that they are in a pickle. They just complimented the other attorney and now they must either admit they were exaggerating, or keep up the good feeling despite being denied their unjustified request.

Trigger three: Please don’t guilt me.

Guilt is a powerful motivator. To avoid feeling guilt, we sometimes will give much more than normal or fair. To get their way, a person will manipulate the facts in such a way as to create guilt in you. My daughter might say “You never let me make my own decisions.” Suddenly I feel that may be right, and I allow her to wear the shorts today.

To combat guilt, you must remember that there is a time to assess the cause and basis for your guilt, but it is not during the discussion at hand. Simply address directly that you understand their point leading to your guilty feeling and agree to look at that subject or issue later, but for now let’s get back to the discussion of the issues at hand.

An example: The husband is out late again. Wife says I want you to call or come home. I am uncomfortable when you are out late and I do not know where you are. Husband retorts about the time his wife falsely accused him of infidelity, and that she just needs to trust him! (No I am not using Tiger Woods as an example.) The wife gives in, but she could instead have acknowledged that she made a mistake previously, note that subject and those feeling should be discussed fully, but after the issue at hand. “You should respect me, and call if your are late, but I really want you to be home with me.

So what happened this morning? Well I committed the time necessary to open the discussion. My daughter tried to convince me that I was not letting her make her own decisions. I noted that she could wear what ever she wanted that was appropriate for the weather. Unfazed, she went right to guilt. You really don’t want me to make my own decisions because you think I am too stupid. She missed the mark with that one, since she is quite smart. Since guilt showed no value, she tried flattery. She argued that it would be warm again today and she wanted to play soccer in the afternoon and would be too warm with long pants on. She just wanted to be better at soccer, a sport I had been encouraging her to practice at since she is showing promise.

It worked! She hit a flattering moment! She wanted to do what I suggested. So we discussed a compromise, she could wear shorts under sweats and take the sweats off when ever she wanted to. Problem solved, she skipped up the stairs. I dodged a bullet, and when my wife came downstairs. She did not even know what happened.

Try these strategies in your personal and professional life. They work.

James Ballidis is the managing attorney for Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie in Newport Beach, Ca.

July 17, 2009

2005 Camary is linked to two sudden acceleration cases causing death. NTSB says there is still no problem with the car..

Two people have died due to sudden and unexpected acceleration of their 2005 Toyota Camary. The National Transportation and Safety Board still maintains that there is no problem with the car. Let me tell you the facts as reported by the police departments that investigated the accidents. You can probably see that a defect exist, why can't the NTSB?

Anne Ezal was going to lunch at the Pelican Point Restaurant in Pismo Beach,California. The restaurant parking lot was downhill of the restaurant. After travelling down the hill and coming to a stop in a parking spot at the bottom of the parking lot hill, the Camary suddenly
accelerated, jumped a curb, went through a fence, negotiated a dirt extension of the lot and then tumbled over the bluff, a feature of the restaurant views. There was no reason to accelerate after pulling into the parking spot and coming to a stop. The vehicle
fell 70 feet killing the driver. There was no explanation why the car suddenly accelerated, and why it kept accelerating though the entire distance traveled before careening over the cliff. The passenger witness said that the driver was doing everything she could to stop the car while approaching the cliff.

In Oklahoma later in 2007, Jean Bookout and her friend Barbara Schwarz were exiting a Highway ramp in Oklahoma. She was also driving a 2005 Camry. The car suddenly accelerated, and to try to stop the car, the driver put on the emergency brake, leaving 100 feet of skid with one tire alone. The vehicle would not stop and the car ran into an embankment with huge force, causing the wrongful death of the passenger and severely injuring the driver.

Someone needs to wake up at the NTSB. While an investigation was conducted that inspected the cars, nothing was found. For a thorough analysis of the investigation, see this article in The Safety Record, by Safety Record and Strategies Inc. Isn't the purpose of the NTSB to protect us from faulty cars. More than a cursory investigation is needed where evidence so clearly points to a problem when these cars are going off the road. In the mean time, buy a 2005 Camary at your own risk.

Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie is a personal injury and accident law firm located in southern California. James Ballidis has been with the firm for 25 years in the capacity as senior trial attorney.

July 2, 2009

Death of bridge worker in Orange County finally resolved 3 years after his death when surviving relatives demonstrated the cause of his death was due to negligence.

The family of Gregory Wolters has recently settled out of court for his wrongful death; falling between gaps of the Santa Margarita Parkway Bridge in Orange County. He is the second death by accidentally falling through gaps in the bridge, and the City apparently posted no warnings about the bridge gap or dangers. Legal experts are asking whether a settlement is worth the loss of life, but equally important, is the process flawed when a City refuses at the claim stage to admit they knew of previous deaths and the danger this bridge design posed?

In late 2006, Wolters was working for Econolite and was performing routine inspection on the bridge when he fell through a gap in the center of bridge. His widow then brought suits against Orange County, Rancho Santa Margarita and the California Department of Transportation.
Orange County Superior Court judge Sheila Fell last week dismissed the case after settlement. Both sides were represented by attorneys arguing who was negligent, but in the end, the lawyers resolved the matter without going to trial.

The complicated legal issues arising from a wrongful death require careful analysis because of the many parties are involved. However, it is a shame that with this as the second death, from the same bridge gap, the City of Rancho Santa Margarita did not attempt to resolve the case before suit had to be filed.

It is worth your while to consult with an Orange County personal injury attorney to evaluate a potential cause of a wrongful death. Otherwise, the family can be left without any recovery when a life was wrongfully taken.

April 29, 2009

California personal injury attorney settles disputed liability auto accident claim for $140,000 .

Last week, Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie settled a hotly contested claim for $140,000. A wonderfully active woman in her 80's was driving in Huntington beach through an intersection, when struck by a patrol car. The officer testified that he was operating under lights and siren to a previous accident and therefore was justified in traveling through the intersection on a red light.
There was also a contention that our client did not have a hearing aid in at the time of the accident, and therefore was negligent and the cause of the accident.

The police report was unfavorable for our client. In our opinion, the investigating officer was biased. To see the truth about ">officer bias, click on the link.

We obtained several names of witnesses to the accident. Those witnesses interviews were key to proving liability. We have long promoted the concept that early investigation is the key to success in this case and all others.

On interview of those witnesses shortly after the accident, they refuted the officer testimony about operating his vehicle under lights and siren. Instead, he had chirped as he entered the intersection. No reason was given why he could not inch into the intersection, or wait for a green light. Because of early investigation, we prevented any witness from ruining our theme as well.

Ultimately, after deposition of all the witnesses and the investigating officers, the City settled with our client. This case demonstrates a real live example of the importance of early investigation by a competent California personal injrury attorney, and the results that come from it.

In the hands of an attorney not familiar with personal injury or less aggressive in locating the witnesses, this nice lady may not have prevailed. In fact, several attorneys turned this case down before she called us. If you need help, call us at 1 888 752-7474 for a free consultation.

February 23, 2009

CALIFORNIA PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER WARNS YOU MUST FILE YOUR CLAIM NOW IF YOU WERE A VICTIM OF THE METROLINK DISASTER OR LOSE ALL YOUR RIGHTS

The Metrolink Chatsworth disaster here in California was one of the worst train disasters California has experienced. Over 135 persons sustained serious personal injury and 25 people tragically lost their lives. Since that sad day, we have learned more about the terrible set of circumstances that led up to the catastrophic event. Distractions such as texting, driver fatigue due to overworking, and possible mechanical malfunction are all presumed. However did you know the victims and their families have limited time to file their claims?

With all that these families are going through, the last things is to worry about claim forms and filing deadlines. However the cut-off date is quickly approaching for this accident. You must file in early March 2009 claims against Metrolink, track owners, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation authority (LACMTA). The statute of limitations is artificially short for governmental agencies, 'to allow the agencies to investigate". Here it would seem more appropriate to waive the claim filing date cut off, but good luck getting a judge to agree with you.

Unfortunately nearly half of the victims have not filed claims yet and their rights may be forever barred if they don’t act soon. Getting a California personal injury attorney that you trust and that can handle these bureaucratic procedures for you is the most prudent thing you can do. You need an expert on your side to handle the details, know the deadlines, and handle the insurance and governmental agencies.

Personal Injury cases such as these are complicated and need a qualified and highly experienced California personal injury lawyer such as Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie. They have a team of lawyers ready to fight for your rights and recover for all of your future needs.

January 21, 2009

IN A PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM WITHOUT ENOUGH INSURANCE WHO SHOULD BE PAID FIRST? ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF ERISA AND SOME RECENT COURT RULINGS, THE HEALTH INSURANCE, EVEN IF THE INJURED GETS NOTHING.

I recently wrote to the American Bar Association legislative counsel and got no response. I thought I might as well post here and start a grass roots movement on such an unfair subject. Here is what I wrote last week, (and got no response by the way)

"My name is James Ballidis. I am a practicing member of the California State Bar Member (119461) and specialize in personal injury auto and truck accident lawsuits enforcing injured victim rights.
Over my 23 year career, we have always had to deal with liens and claims arising from ERISA policies, but thanks to the judiciary, ERISA has been interpreted to allow for just and equitable apportionment of damage proceeds between the victim, the treating doctors not paid by ERISA health insurance, and ERISA providers seeking reimbursement.

ERISA, drafted so many years ago, did not anticipate the current environment of reimbursement and was relatively silent on the rules of reimbursement. 29 USC 1132 [a](3) provides for reimbursement claims to fall under the 'appropriate equitable relief" standard, when enforcing liens and reimbursement rights. As a practical matter, our district has taken the view in the past, that principals of equity, in the absence of specific legislative language, would apply to reimbursement issues. Thus when there is inadequate insurance and assets to compensate all parties aggrieved by a third party's actions, such concepts of unjust enrichment, and the "common fund" theory of equitable apportionment of proceeds to all parties were used, to allow the practitioner to manage a fair settlement providing recovery to all in a proportionate and fair manner.

Recently however, a troubling case came down in the 8th Circuit that now places a priority on ERISA liens to be paid from the proceeds of settlement before any sums are paid to a victim. While Courts will hide behind language suggesting that the language of the policy could allow for less than full reimbursement, as a practical matter, all policies of health insurance demand reimbursement and language is almost always drafted to give the most reimbursement to the carrier at the expense of the victim.

I direct your attention to the case of Admin. Comm. of the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Shank, 500 F.3d 834. This case was later denied review by the Supreme Court probably because there has not been another district deciding on these facts directly.

In This case, a woman was severely injured in a major accident, had catastrophic brain injury, will never work again and sustained $462,000 in medical bills paid by Wal-Mart. The plan sought reimbursement (OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAID) from a $700,000 settlement. After attorney fees and costs, the amount to the Plaintiff was $417,000. Thus Wal-Mart sought to capture all the proceeds leaving this poor woman without any possible fund for future use, or recovery for lost wages, damages for pain and suffering or otherwise.

All the typical arguments were raised on appeal to an order that the entire sum not be payable to Wal-Mart. Common fund, which suggests that each party be reimbursed a ratio of their damages to the total damages was rejected. So was the theory of the victim must first be made whole before any reimbursement is required. Common Law Pro Rata reimbursement was also rejected. The Court reasoned that "Appropriate equitable relief" meant appropriate to maintain and protect the plans funds and integrity, without consideration for the victim at all.
Wal-Mart Won. Of Course the media crushed them and they gave the money to the victim but the damage has been done. The impact on this case has been immediate. Virtually all reimbursement companies are now demanding full reimbursement with little ability to counter their demand.

Let's discuss the typical case:
Client is involved in a clear liability accident but the defendant is woefully uninsured. Defendant owns a house (with little equity now) and had a $100,000 policy limit of insurance. They have no other assets, ie Middle America defendant. The client required 3 surgeries and incurred $150,000 in medical fees paid by their employer under an ERISA plan. The client has underinsured motorist coverage of $100,000 thinking they are protected but it does not apply.
The Plan refuses to accept anything less than the $100,000 policy limit or at least the amount after attorney fees to collect it, leaving the victim no money for being out of work, providing no pain and suffering, no co-pay assistance and generally causing this life to be in turmoil. If the injuries are severe enough that they do not work again they will become a ward of the state. If they are lucky enough, they get back to work but are in financial crisis.
THIS OUTCOME HAS BEEN NOW OCCURRING IN VIRTUALLY EVERY CASE IN MY OFFICE WITH AN ERISA PLAN SEEKING TO BE PAID IN FULL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CLIENT.

The fair and reasonable approach, which obviously will have to come from legislative amendment is:
A fair compromise of a settlement should be to drafted to protect the rights of the ERISA plan and the victim.

Here is an amendment that seems reasonable:

"Appropriate equitable relief as it pertains to ERISA plans seeking reimbursement or enforcement of liens means: an equitable apportionment of the proceeds of any settlement between the ERISA plan and the victim in accordance with each of their total damages claims, after deduction of attorney fees and costs, if any."
This needs immediate attention for victims and working attorneys who are now faced with heartbreaking news for the family of an accident.

May I please have your response

Respectfully
James Ballidis"

I will keep you posted if the ABA responds and if not, what I am going to do about it.

James Ballidis

November 14, 2008

ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY OUTLINES SPORTS INJURY CLAIMS AND WHAT TO DO TO AVOID THEM

Schools are back in session across Orange County and children everywhere are playing on sport teams both after school and on weekends. More than 30 million children and teens participate in some type of organized sport here in the U.S. About 3.5 million of those children will experience some type of personal injury. In fact over 1/3 of all injuries that children experiences are sports related. But all sports are not created equal and neither are the injuries. There is potential for injury in all sports and as a parent, you can be aware of the types of injuries that are common in that sport and monitor the coach, the team interactions and of course, your child. Save yourself a trip to the attorney by implementing these safety plans to avoid personal injury

Although death from a sport injury is rare, the most serious type of sport related injury is the brain injury. 21% of all kids who participate in recreational activities will experience some type of head trauma. This type of accident is very serious because it has long-lasting effects throughout your time. As children grow older, so does their aggressive behaviors and goals for scholarship $$$.

A recent study just released from the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research (NCCSI) concluded that the most dangerous sport for girls is cheerleading. Yes cheerleading! Since cheerleading is not regulated, it is not considered a “real sport”. Today’s cheerleaders are tossed high into the air, twirl and experience risky gymnastic-style stunts but that was not always the case.

Cheerleaders suffered 65% of all high school girls sports injuries and since 1982, 67 fatal or life-threatening injuries have occurred—not your mother’s cheerleading squad. One California college student, Jessica recalls being tossed into the air 15 feet, when she looked down in horror. Her teammate that was supposedly going to catch her had lost his balance and fell backwards. She landed head first on the ground and broke her back in two places. The doctors told her she was millimeters away from paralysis.

Overall, most kids in high school get through with just some bruises and sprains. Since 62% of all organized sports-related injuries occur during practice, it’s a good idea to make sure the coach implements a good warm up phase and does not push the kids beyond their limits. Children of the same age and weight, but who are less developed are at greater risk for personal injury.
Can you guess which sports have the most injuries? You might be surprised. The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, NEISS, tracks sport-related injuries and reports any emerging patterns to appropriate agencies. The most dangerous sport in terms of injuries, are in descending order: basketball, biking, football, ATV riding, baseball/softball.

Although, some sport injuries are unavoidable, some are preventable by wearing appropriate safety equipment, such as helmets, shin guards and proper clothing. Also staying active year around will help keep muscles flexible and your mind alert.
If you or a loved one has experience a serious personal injury of any kind, call an experienced attorney immediately. They will be able to answer all of your questions and assist you through the process of recovery. Call us anytime at 1 888 752-7474.

September 24, 2008

DEFECTIVE PRODUCT ATTORNEY IN CALIFORNIA WARNS OF NEW BABY ITEM SAFTEY ISSUES

September is Baby Safety Month and it comes as we read and hear about defective baby items almost every day in the news. In fact there are on average 5 baby products recalled every month. That’s a lot of worrying for any new family, but thankfully we have the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, to watch out for us. Damages from unsafe consumer products cost the U.S. more than $700 billion per year. But over the last 30 years there has been a 30% drop in death and injury, thanks to smarter consumers.
If you’re a new parent, here are two new warnings out this week that you should be concerned with.

The first one is the recall of infant formula imported from China. This recall specifically is targeted to the Chinese American communities within California, but it could also end up in any store. The Orange County community of Irvine has one of the fastest growing Chinese populations in California and so has many shops containing Chinese -made products. The Federal Drug administration, FDA, is worried that some formula may have brought in illegally and potentially be in ethnic markets. It is illegal to import Chinese manufactured baby formula, but it does end up here. The name of the product is Sanlu.

So far there have been no reported illnesses in the U.S. but in China, three infants have died and 6000+ children have been sickened with kidney stones, flu-like symptoms and kidney failure. It has been discovered that the formula has been tainted with melamine, which is a nitrogen-based compound used in commercial plastics and industrial products. You may recall the large recall of pet food last year had the same ingredient. The Chinese government is now sending inspectors out to the milk suppliers of Sanlu Group. Evidence is mounting that the suppliers were adding the melamine to the milk to artificially give the milk higher protein content. Sanlu knew about the tainting as early as May when the first baby died, but kept quiet to avoid bad press during the Olympic games.

The second warning is a major recall of baby cribs and bassinets. This is the third major recall of children’s sleep furniture from Simplicity. A year ago Simplicity recalled over 1 million cribs after the deaths of two children. Some of these cribs were sold under the brand name of Graco. Just last month, 900,000 bassinets under the brands Simplicity, Disney and Graco were recalled. This month, 600,000 drop-side cribs can come off its tracks and suffocate a child. The cribs were made between January 2005 to August 2008 and were sold at Target, Wal-Mart and Babies-r-us. For more information on model numbers of the cribs, please visit the CPSC website at www.cpsc.gov for more information on this and other defective baby products.

Just to complicate the issue a little more, Simplicity has gone bankrupt and sold its assets to a new buyer. That buyer has now stated that they are not liable for recalling any products. Sound confusing? If your infant has been injured from this type of product or any other device, you don't hesitate to consult an attorney to answer all your questions.

February 27, 2008

ORANGE COUNTY RESIDENT PROVES KNEE INJURY OCCURRED EVEN WITHOUT SYMPTOMS FOR 4 WEEKS

How do you prove that an injury, that did not show symptoms for more than 4 weeks after an accident, is accident related? That was the problem facing a recent client, whose case settled last week.

While operating his motorcycle on a roadway in Huntington Beach, an adverse driver turned left into his path causing him to have to lay down his motorcycle, hurting his knee. Liability was clear and injury at the scene did not seem to be anything more than scrapes and road rash after the accident. There was however a small bruise on the knee, that our office photographed out of caution..

Continue reading "ORANGE COUNTY RESIDENT PROVES KNEE INJURY OCCURRED EVEN WITHOUT SYMPTOMS FOR 4 WEEKS" »

February 22, 2008

GORY PHOTOS POSTED BY CALIFORNIA CHP ARE SUBJECT OF PERSONAL PRIVACY LAWSUIT

Imagine the worst. Your child has just died in an automobile accident. But in the aftermath you now discover that your child’s gory accident photos are now scattered all over the internet. Is this a matter of protecting the privacy of the family or free speech?

Continue reading "GORY PHOTOS POSTED BY CALIFORNIA CHP ARE SUBJECT OF PERSONAL PRIVACY LAWSUIT" »

January 17, 2008

CALIFORNIA TOUGHENS DRIVING LAWS TO PREVENT PERSONAL INJURY CAUSED BY ELDERLY INCAPABLE DRIVERS

It took the death of a 15 year old California girl, Brandi Mitock, to pass a law requiring elderly drivers to take a written and road test at age 75 or older here in California. She was killed by a 96 year old motorist that hadn’t taken a road test since 1918-- that was day he received his driver’s license! Although rules in states vary greatly, here in California, after age 70, no driver may get automatic renewals through the mail. Is this a case of age discrimination like many see it? Or is it a safety measure geared to save lives here in California? Let’s look at the facts and you can decide.

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA TOUGHENS DRIVING LAWS TO PREVENT PERSONAL INJURY CAUSED BY ELDERLY INCAPABLE DRIVERS" »

August 13, 2007

CONAGRA NOW SAYS THEIR PEANUT BUTTER IS SAFE, BUT WHAT OF THE PREVIOUS SALMONELLA INJURY VICTIMS

Orange County California: Our office was retained by a recent victim of Salmonella poisoning caused by ingesting peanut butter produced by ConAgra. The case is simple, within an hour of ingesting peanut butter, she had to go to the hospital where she suffered greatly, and if not for the heroics of the hospital staff, she would have died. No one knew what the cause of the illness was until days later when a recall came of the peanut butter she had ingested. When our client's husband checked the jar, opened and used the day of her illness, it was in fact the recalled product. Thank goodness none of their children had ingested the product. We represent victims of personal injury and product liability.

Our office put ConAgra on notice of the claim and tested the product by an independent lab. Testing confirmed the presence of Salmonella. ConAgra did nothing to investigate and ignored our client's claim. Over $25,000 in medical expenses were incurred and one would think ConAgra would do the right thing and adjust the claim. Not so.

Continue reading "CONAGRA NOW SAYS THEIR PEANUT BUTTER IS SAFE, BUT WHAT OF THE PREVIOUS SALMONELLA INJURY VICTIMS" »

March 13, 2007

Client Sustaining Broken Legs Gets Substantial Settlement

Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie this month settled a claim against an adverse driver for $1.25 Million Dollars. The head-on auto accident occurred in Northern California where the case was eventually litigated. Our client sustained a severe "Pilon" fracture injury to one ankle and a broken leg and wrist. She was not able to work as a teacher for 6 months, and incurred $90,000 in medical bills paid by her health insurance.

748020_crash_car_1.jpg

The Defendant contended that our client made a good recovery and had modest residual symptoms that did not warrant more than $400,000 in settlement. The Defendant also contended he was not liable, but cut off by another vehicle, a claim that was proven to be false. There was also inadequate insurance coverage.

The firm of Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie located a second, one-million dollar excess policy, and with underlying coverage, was able to satisfactorily settle the client's case for $1,250,000. Congratulations to James Ballidis & Suzanne Leslie of the firm for their hard work and successful outcome.

August 23, 2006

A Small Girl with Preexisting Seizure Disorder recovers for recent Exacerbation

A Small Girl with Preexisting Seizure Disorder recovers for recent Exacerbation. A three-year-old client of the firm was involved in a rearend automobile accident. She had a significant preexisting history of seizures due to premature birth. While under control, her seizure disorder continued to dampen her learning abilities and she was under accelerated care at the time of the accident.

Continue reading "A Small Girl with Preexisting Seizure Disorder recovers for recent Exacerbation" »

July 21, 2006

Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie Hires Experienced Litigator Michael Mazal

The Firm recently hired Michael Mazal, a veteran trial attorney with 17 years jury trial experience in personal injury, casualty and insurance litigation. Mr. Mazal will be lead counsel in several of the firms high profile cases approaching trial.

Continue reading "Allen, Flatt, Ballidis & Leslie Hires Experienced Litigator Michael Mazal" »

June 29, 2006

Southern California auto accident victim gets positive result in arbitration.

The firm gets a positive result for an auto accident victim. We are pleased to report our recent binding arbitration result for one of our auto accident victims. A woman in her 40's was involved in a collision that caused neck and low back injury. She incurred about $10,000 in medical bills but no wage loss.

Our client was concerned about her future medical needs and any further medical expenses she would incur. She had no health insurance.

The insurance carrier for the other driver contended, through expert testimony, that our client would have only had 4 to 6 weeks of minor pain from the automobile accident, and that any further treatment and symptoms were due to a degenerative spinal condition that existed for many years prior to the accident. The insurance carrier argued that our client's treatment for a period of 1 year was excessive as it related to this accident, and only offered $13,000 in settlement of her case.

Our attorneys were able to obtain a $70,000 binding arbitration result that made for a speedy resolution of her claim without appeal and puts her back on her feet. We salute Michael Bock and the office staff on a job well done.