avis rental agency.jpg49 U.S.C. Sec. 30106 (the “Graves Amendment”) shields those “engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles [when] there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner” from vicarious liability for the rented or leased vehicle. Sec. 30106(a).

Given this language, does the Graves Amendment shield car dealerships from vicarious liability for accidents involving loaner vehicles? The one decision discussing the Graves Amendment vis-a-vis free service loaners, Zisersky v. Life Quality Motor Sales, Inc., 866 N.Y.S. 2d 501 (N.Y.. Sup. Ct. 2008), says No. Correctly, in our view, the court concluded that a loaner is neither a “lease” nor a “rental.”

The Graves Amendment has been used to shield rental agencies from vicarious liability for serious personal injuries caused by the drivers of their vehicles. We take issue with the Graves Amendment being applied under any circumstances, yet, sadly, it seems to be carrying the day in courts of most states with regard to rental agencies … at great harm to many individuals.

For example, our office is currently involved in a case where the negligent renter of an Enterprise vehicle caused it to flip over numerous times on I-75 near Gainesville, Florida. Enterprise is hiding behind the Graves Amendment to deny needed compensation to our client, an innocent passenger who was airlifted to Shands Hospital.
Continue reading

A deposition is the gathering of sworn verbal testimony under oath. Except for communications that are protected by attorney/client privilege and the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, witnesses are required to answer deposition questions. If a lawyer feels that a question is confusing, misstates testimony, lacks foundation, or assumes facts not in evidence, it is proper for an objection to be lodged before the question is answered. In most instances, the objection should simply be, “I object to the form of the question.” This alerts the deposing lawyer that there may be a problem with the question. However, unless the lawyer invites the objecting attorney to explain or clarify the objection, nothing more should be said. Unfortunately, some lawyers abuse the right to object by not only explaining and clarifying without been asked to do so, they also suggest the response the witness should make. This obstructs the fact gathering process and is prohibited by various authorities.

It is difficult to keep disagreeable attorneys from staying in bounds during depositions. One solution is to warn the attorney and if the abuse continues, try to get the presiding judge on the telephone to issue a ruling on the spot. Sanctions can be sought after the deposition, but the cat is out of the bag by then.
Continue reading

brain mri.jpgTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is the term used to describe brain injuries caused by trauma. Common causes of TBI include motor vehicle accidents, sport incidents, and simple fall down accidents. Brain injuries can also be caused by chemicals, lack of oxygen (hypoxia), Tumors, infection, and stroke.

No matter the cause, the consequences of TBI can be devastating physically, emotionally, and financially. TBI is also one of the leading causes of death in the United States.

TBI is a complex injury with a broad spectrum of symptoms and disabilities, ranging from headaches, dizziness, memory loss, mood swings to coma and persistent vegetative state. Even mild symptoms of TBI can have life-changing consequences.

When TBI is caused by negligence, the victim may be able to recover compensation from the at-fault party for lost wages, loss of earning capacity, pain & suffering, loss of capacity to enjoy life, and past and future medical benefits, including attendant care. In addition, the victim’s spouse and dependents may be compensated for the impact of the injury on their lives.
Continue reading

Florida Statute 768.0415 instructs that unmarried dependents of parents sustaining significant permanent injury through the negligence of others shall be compensated for damages including loss of services, comfort, companionship, and society.

The compensation for damages under this statute is not limited to minors. It includes adult dependents.
Continue reading

pinoccio.jpgPrior to 1990, Florida employers had a common law qualified privilege to discuss current and former employees with prospective employers. The leading case was Nadar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803 (Fla. 1984). For an employee to overcome the privilege, and thus hold the employer liable for defamation or intentional interference with a business relationship, proof was required that the false information was made with express malice – not to be confused with “actual malice,” the standard applicable to claims against public officials or public figures – described as “where the primary motive for the statement is shown to be an intention to injure the plaintiff.” Nadar, 462 @ 806 (citing Loeb v. Geronemus, 66 So.2d 241 (Fla. 1953). This common law standard needed to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.

Florida Statute 768.095 appears to have superseded the common law. (The case law handed down since the enactment of 768.095 is somewhat confusing on the interplay, if any, between the statute and the common law.)
Continue reading

Seamen injured onboard vessels may be compensated based on two entirely different legal concepts: No-fault and Fault.

No-fault benefits include maintenance and cure. These benefits are provided by the employer and end when the injured seaman reaches maximum medical cure.

To receive these benefits, the employee need only show that the injuries occurred in the course and scope of the employment. It matters not what caused the injuries.

Fault-based compensation includes lost wages (past & future) and pain and suffering (past & future). This compensation comes from the employer and/or the vessel owner.
Continue reading

Seamen injured on board vessels may be entitled to a wide array of economic and non-economic compensation from their employers and ship owners depending on the circumstances of each case.

geo explorer.jpg

NO-FAULT BENEFITS

Regardless of why a particular accident happens, every injured seaman is entitled to Maintenance & Cure benefits from his employer. These benefits are considered no-fault benefits, or benefits payable without regard to fault. Maintenance is the amount of money an injured seaman needs to sustain himself on land in a manner similar to how he was being sustained by the employer at sea. The primary elements of Maintenance are food and shelter. Employers try to pay pre-determined amounts, typically $20-$40/day, without regard to the actual facts. Employees can challenge the employer on the set amounts. For example, we recently represented an injured seaman who received $84/day. This was an unusually high amount that should not be viewed as anything other than an illustration of the point that the employer can be challenged and will sometimes voluntarily pay more than the industry standard. Interestingly, a seaman’s actual wages do not dictate how much the employer must pay, although it may influence how much the employer will pay. The reason for the higher payment is to offset the amount of money the employer may have to pay later on for past lost wages. (See below for a discussion of this element.)

Cure is medical care that is reasonable, related and necessary for the injuries.

The employer’s obligation to pay for Maintenance & Cure ends when the injured seaman reaches maximum medical cure. MMC is defined as the point beyond which there is no reasonable expectation of further medical improvement. Reaching MMC does not necessarily mean that the seaman has healed to his pre-accident state of health. MMC is determined by the treating doctor or doctors.

The third and final benefit available without regard to fault are the wages a seaman would otherwise have earned through the duration of the voyage but for the accident. In a recent case, we represented a gentleman who worked on a research vessel that was involved in projects at sea for months on end. Because he was injured during the early stages of a voyage and had to be evacuated from the vessel, as long as he remained unable to return to the vessel he was entitled to receive his full Wages.

It is not uncommon that the employer has to be sued to pay these benefits.

FAULT BASED COMPENSATION

Whether or not a seaman receives any other type of compensation for his injuries comes down to the question of whether or not there was any negligence on the part of the employer or vessel owner in causing the accident. If the answer is No, the seaman receives nothing more than the benefits described above.

Where fault is established, injured seamen may be eligible for one or more of the following types of compensation.

Past Wage Loss. The measurement of this damage element is the difference between the amount received in maintenance or contractual voyage payments and the wages the seaman would otherwise have earned but for the accident.

Future Lost Earning Capacity. This measure is somewhat trickier to calculate than the formula for past wage loss. It includes predictions and calculations regarding work restrictions, vocational qualifications, work-life expectancy, and present value. For example, in a case we handled involving a tri-level spinal fusion surgery, we argued that our 54 year old client would never again be able to work as a crewman, which would result in a total or at least a partial loss of wages over a work-life expectancy of 10 and 15 years.
Continue reading

moses.jpgThe Republican Establishment has chosen Willard Mitt Romney to lead its people to The Promised Land. It points to his success in making large sums of money as the primary qualifying factor for the selection.

G-d chose Moses to lead the Jews to their Promised Land. Interestingly, what persuaded G-d to select Moses was his compassion more than his accomplishments.

The Book of Exodus tells us that Moses was rescued from the Nile River as an infant and raised by the Pharoah’s daughter. One day he witnessed an Egyptian beating a Jew. He killed the Egyptian. Later he intervened in a fight between two Jews, the circumstances of which forced him to flee Egypt. While in the desert, he saved the seven daughters of Jethro from evil shepherds.

These acts showed perseverance, courage and fortitude. This was not enough for G-d.
Continue reading

us supreme court.jpgMost freedom-loving Americans believe that intelligence, skill, character, and temperament are the most important qualities of a judge. Not so Florida Governor Rick Scott. Ideology is what matters most to this governor … right-wing ideology at that.

In a blatant effort to subvert a free-acting judiciary, Governor Scott is seeking to change the way judge’s are selected in Florida. He is pushing legislation that will remove the selection process from the hands of independent groups and give it to the governor. Shocking.

Reproduced below is a Letter to the Editor published in today’s Miami Herald which touches nicely on the subject:
******************************
Keep Florida’s judiciary independent
 
There’s a challenge afoot this legislative session for Florida Bar Association President Scott G. Hawkins and the Bar’s board members: To protect Florida’s justice system from a force that, if left unchecked, would eviscerate it.

Gov. Rick Scott plans to completely overtake Judicial Nominating Committee appointments. The governor has stated he would like to move all JNC appointments to the Office of the Governor, rejecting the time-honored and traditional input of the Florida Bar. This would amount to the biggest judicial power grab in Florida’s history.

Don’t be fooled by the promises and rhetoric: This is not about the philosophical belief that Florida would have a stronger, more independent judiciary if picked exclusively by the executive branch. Gov. Scott has an agenda for “his” judiciary.
Continue reading

Doctor selection under the Defense Base Act and the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA) is crucial. It can make the difference between fairness and injustice.

Through 42 U.S.C. 1651(a), the LHWCA is the substantive law for the Defense Base Act. Under the LHWCA, employers/insurance companies are required to provide injured workers with medical care. Injured workers have the right to choose one doctor. Once the selection is made, any change must come by agreement of the E/C or order of the Secretary of Labor’s office. Injured workers do not want to be reliant on either alternative. Accordingly, the initial choice is key.

Money has a tendency to corrupt. Sadly, doctors are not above being influenced by insurance company money to render false opinions unfavorable to their patients. Doing otherwise jeopardizes the flow of future insurance company business. This is why we see the same doctors being selected time and again in every type of workers’ compensation case, from state workers’ compensation cases, to Defense Base Act cases, to LHWCA cases.

Like sexual prostitutes, whore doctors do whatever is required to please the customer. Unlike sexual prostitutes, however, the immoral acts of whore doctors harm innocent victims … their own patients. So much for the Hippocratic Oath.

Given these harsh realities, it is especially important for injured workers to select their doctors carefully. There are many doctors of high principle who are not beholden to insurance companies. Lawyers who represent injured workers know who they are and can help in the selection process. Unfortunately, in a large percentage of cases the dye has already been cast by the time proper legal advice is sought. Most injured workers have already begun treating by the time they meet with a lawyer.
Continue reading

Contact Information